Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog has updated his map of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare behemoth and what it creates. Namely 111 agencies, regulators, committees, boards and offices: (click on picture to enlarge)
Meanwhile Senator Gregg reacts to the new CBO estimate:
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”
And listen…this is what our government believes will be the cost. But look at programs our government has run historically and you find decades of added costs and overruns that our forced onto the taxpayer.
Insanity
Sarah has a great post on her facebook about this and the same chart. I just can’t believe that our country would want the Obama Care Plan.
CBO projected “savings” are never realized. Congressional cost estimates are always dramatically understated. The broken and corrupt process demands it be this way. Review projections for social security, medicare, senior prescription drugs, and any other government run program and show me even one that came in anywhere near the initial budget or projections. What makes any sane person think this health care fiasco will be any different? It is a fiction generated by those who seek power, money, and control and touted by the incompetent.
Pelosi’s “new” concept of bipartisan = Liberal Dems + “Moderate” Dems.
The purpose of this post is not to be contentious or argue in favor of any particular point of view. I’ve stated my own views on the Obamacare debate in some detail elsewhere; at present I’m not seeking to start this again (among other things, my personal time schedule wouldn’t permit me to get into the usual one against six debate which is the invariable outcome). So, once again, I’m not seeking a debate; I’m simply seeking a reaction to a very, very narrow question.
To wit:
The abortion issue.
Now, virtually all private insurance plans pay for abortion. You buy United Health Care or Aetna or Blue Cross or Humana and pay more in premiums than you get back in health care services and you are directly subsidizing abortions. That’s the reality. The fact is, you are voluntarily doing this: it isn’t some program imposed on you by government. Private insurance pays for most of the abortions which take place in this country. You choose to buy private health insurance (or you accept private health insurance from your employer) and you are directly subsidizing abortions, of your own free choice.
Now, what’s going on now, in the House, is interesting. No guarantee how this is going to turn out. No guarantee that the final bill won’t be changed in Senate/House reconciliation, etc. But, just for the sake of academic argument, let’s say that what seems to be going on now actually ends up being the way the final bill gets signed into law.
In order to get enough votes to pass, Pelosi may be forced to give in to demands from conservative Democrats (no, that’s not entirely an oxymoron) that the final bill puts in a total prohibition against the “public option” plan paying for any abortion services and for government-subsidized private plans paying for any abortion services.
Now, what this would do (stay with me on this) is to force lots of people who would otherwise be covered by private health insurance which pays for abortions into a public plan (or publicly subsidized private plan) which did NOT pay for abortions. Hence, the total number of abortions actually performed would certainly go down (not close to zero and maybe only by 10% or so or whatever, but they would still go down).
In fact, for someone who didn’t want to subsidize abortions with his (or his employer’s, which is the same thing) own money, the only option might be the “public option.”
Wouldn’t that be just a tad bit ironic?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, that was actually I point I had considered and was digging around on – “Does my current insurance company pay for abortions?”
I can’t quite well say “I don’t want this in the public option” if my current insurance company does in good conscience.
HOWEVER, there is a group of people out there who think that “Planned Parenthood” is nothing more than a hidden genocidal movement. And lets face it, it doesn’t look good when you look at Margaret Sanger and the history there.
Now, comes the question – if abortion IS included, how many abortions will be at the hands of “Planned Parenthood” – the people that believe this is a genocide movement will now have the idea that this is government endorsed genocide.
All I will say is – good luck with that when addressing these people and their concerns.
(There is a side issue with Abortion and the legal system I have but that will wait for another thread).
On a related note to the whole mess:
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
Also – look at the JCT letter linked from that article:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf
The number of taxpayers in 2007 was 138 million. So it averages out of a tax increase of about $1,232 per taxpayer per year. But it doesn’t stop there. The government expects an 8% compounded increase in the total cost yearly after that.
The Democrats claim the health bill will help 96% of the American people. That leaves 12 million people. Out of the 47 million people not insured, 10 million people are illegal aliens which are said won’t be helped and 17 million are in households making $50,000 or more so they probably will not get aid. So that leaves 8 million people that will get help from this bill. That’s $37,500 per person per year using that $3 trillion cost.
But of course there is even more! Pelosi’s bill has a stick when it comes to states inacting tort reform. If a state inacts tort reform, the federal government will deny federal health aid to the state. So a person in the state getting Medicare will be getting no care and those getting Medicaid will be getting care from money provided by the state side. Tort reform would save $58 billion a year according to Sen. Reid and between $100-$200 billion a year in unnecessary medical tests according to Reuters.
@Temujin says: “Review projections for social security, medicare, senior prescription drugs, and any other government run program and show me even one that came in anywhere near the initial budget or projections.”
Right you are!
Here’s the problem: The cost of privately-run health programs rose even more than the cost of government-run health programs. One way or another, we are going to have to pay the costs of health care. The implication of Mike’s post in #6 is that the reason expenses exceeded budget was because of government inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. There may have been a bit of that; but there’s inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. in privately-administered health care plans, as well. The reason costs have sykrocketed beyond budget is because the cost of health care has skyrocketed.
Health insurance premiums for small businesses are going up 15% in this year alone, after more than doubling during President Bush’s tenure. Even as benefits are going down and out of pocket costs are going up.
Look at the economy and business environment, right now. You think that the 15% increase wouldn’t be just as much of a job killer as any tax increase? And the increased out of pocket costs won’t be a burden on consumer spending and saving? But tax increases to pay for Medicare (even to make Medicare solvent) would have been less, over the years, than the increases in private insurance premiums plus increases in out of pocket costs would have been.
I think that there are many creative ways to attack the Pelosi health care bill and Obamacare in general. I compliment the FA contributors for their scholarship and diligence in finding flaws in the general Democratic health care initiative. But arguing this on the basis of total cost is the weakest argument which you can make against this bill. It won’t increase total costs (insurance premiums + taxes + out of pocket costs) beyond what they are going to be in the absence of health care reform.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Too many Agencies, Boards and too stupidly bureaucratic / expensive for the Majority of Americans. It is a BS Ratmaze. Period.
It will be a Monster, produce a wild deficit spike and destroy Health Care availability as well as Private Insurance that survives on a 3% margin. My TRICARE Premiums are going to be increased again and that will affect Retired and Active Duty Military Families that don’t make six figures a year by any stretch.
It is time to stop the BS on this. Period. Reduced Quality of Care, is coming if this is signed into Law. Do the math. Congress has not, neither has the Senate or the Socialists in the White House. They will just print more money, raise taxes and control roughly 1/6th MORE of the Economy. This is Crap and Americans will suffer from this travesty for a generation or so. It takes that long to make useless CRAP like this go away.
Anyone that supports this needs to get off the pipe. This is exactly what happens when Idiots are sent to DC and Fools vote for Bills that they have not read or understand.
If this bill passes, it will be a very sad day for me. I came to America with no money, lots of dreams and worked my a$$ off to be able to enjoy a better life and a better future for my children. What happened to that America? It is fading and I cannot explain the apathy of most Americans to engage themselves in the political process. We have became complacent with our lifes. Our conservatives values have been attacked by a bunch of nitwigs who love to hate America from the morning til the evening because Marx says so. A bunch of good for nothing elected officials are voting right now to take my freedom away. Where are those nice decent Americans that knew what was right and were willing to fight for freedom?.
URI, a lot of US are still here, Pardner, and aim to vote the Marxists Out at the earliest opportunity.
They just passed the votes. One republican voting for them!
God Help Us!
220-215. Narrow margin. On to the traitors in the Senate next, then Reconciliation.
openid.aol.com/runnswim look again. Reuter claims that Medicare fraud is $200 billion a year. Medicare’s budget for 2009 was $408 billion. So 49% of Medicare payments are to pay for fraud. Pelonsi’s plan calls for the cost to be $37,500 a year for each of the 8 million that it’s going to help. I really doubt any private insurance payment is that high in the U.S. Not only is your healthcare bill going to naturally go up, you will have to pay about $1,000 a year in new taxes to pay for Pelonsi’s new plan.
The Republican plan would cut costs, but the Democrats don’t want to do that.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Pages, Costs, and Agencies Added To The Obama/Pelosi Health Care Behemoth -- Topsy.com
@ openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry)
Depends on how you structure the policy Larry. I know Blue Cross works with Catholic organizations to provide health insurance plans the do not offer abortion. I don’t know about the rest.
Worry not though, the vote was just to provide cover. If a bill ever makes its way into conference, the abortion issue will be put back in. But it’s not just the abortion part, it’s the FOCA provisions they have written in. Catholic Hospitals have already said they will close their doors before they are forced to perform abortions. Don’t say FOCA isn’t written in there either. The Conference of Catholic Bishops are 100% behind the healthcare bill, as long as FOCA isn’t in there.
We won’t really know unless or until the final bill is brought forth and the Concsience Protection provisions are in there or removed.
For all we disagree on, I’m curious to know how my sentiments regarding health care align with conservative contributors and readers of this blog.
Disclaimer: I am a layperson on all fronts with respect to health-care, so I won’t be too surprised if my ideas are ultimately shredded, but that’s at least one better than keeping them from ever seeing the light of day.
First, I’ll make some enemies on the right: I feel that our government should offer a welfare-like health care plan which fully funds/reimburses all palliative care (ease of suffering).
I have no qualms about being taxed out-right for the ease-of-suffering care for other members of society. I do not think anybody, anywhere, should be in a position to not ease the suffering of a fellow human – that, in my mind, should constitute criminal behavior.
Now, for some enemies on the left: The government should play no role whatsoever in decisions or funding pertaining to curative treatments.
All curative treatments should be funded out-of-pocket or by private insurance (at the discretion of the patient / patient’s family) and, for patients and families unable to afford that financial load, then from appeals to charitable organizations (or, equivalently, to the hospitals or clinics to act in a charitable manner) for financial assistance.
Speaking for myself, I have no problem allocating enough of my income to pay for the minor medical issues encountered by myself and my family; nor with paying for private insurance to use should I or my family encounter major medical expenses.
Furthermore, I’d happily contribute a significant portion of my income to a charitable organization which gave explicit and clear guidelines to how and under what circumstances those funds would be disbursed to people in need. Transparency and accountability would be key here: I’d demand the right to review an online database of all cases submitted for funding (stripped of personal identifying information), to see the amount of charitable funding (if any) ultimately contributed or lent for each case, and to see a statement detailing the rationale behind the funding decisions for each case. Accountability might come in the ability to vote off board members who regularly made funding decisions I find un-palatable.
From my naive layperson perspective, it seems a system such as this aligns the right’s desire for personal freedom with the left’s desire to treat all members of society with the human compassion empathy according to the values encompassed by the community as a whole.
Shall the shredding now commence?
@Kevin: The shredding begins.
Kevin, you say:
I don’t know too many people, IF ANY, on the right who want to see the poor die in a ditch because they couldn’t get health care. There were many Republican votes for Medicaid and Medicare which directly addressed that problem. We had a bipartisan consensus that we can and should look after those who could not provide for themselves.
But this isn’t what the current Dem plan is about. It’s about forcing you and I to buy insurance, and only the DEM APPROVED brand of insurance (which includes funding for abortion, illegal aliens and the rest). It’s about having our right to decide on our health care, and to pay for it ourselves if we want to, taken away.
Conservative objections are also founded on the fact that the cost projections of these programs is always WRONG and that another huge program like this will bankrupt the country at a time when we are already running historic deficits.
And just LOOK at that organizational chart. That’s not a cartoon Kevin. It’s a graphic depiction of the organizational compexity of the Pelosi plan. You don’t need to hire tens of thousands of bureaucrats and give them enormous control over our daily lives if your goal is to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I’d really like to know where you got this idea that the GOP would like to prevent anyone who would “ease the suffering of a fellow human?” The real “criminal behavior” here is the person or persons who are misleading you into thinking that the GOP and conservatives want people to suffer.
Mike Thompson (D-CA) – North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson doesn’t think the House of Representatives health care bill is perfect, but he thinks it’s a historic step forward.
”I don’t think it’s close to perfect,” Thompson said Saturday afternoon, hours before he intended to vote for the bill. “This is like any other major piece of legislation — we’re going to be working on this forever. As long as there are people and there’s a need for health care, we’re going to be refining this legislation. It’s the nature of the beast. But, this bill brings us one step closer to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.”
Mike Thompson is a worthless cull, once a man who won votes from both sides of the aisle, now and in recent years he has shown himself to be a partisan tool. He was going to vote for this bill in the very beginning, before the Recess when they were trying to ram it through. Before anyone, including himself, had read it, before anyone knew what was in it. Before the Tea Parties, before the “nasty” Town Hall meetings, before the people started asking questions and before the people told him what they thought.
He would have voted for it no matter what was in it – and he has now done just that.
There is no reason for us to pay for Congressmen and Senators like him to fly to Washington and maintain an office there. We know how he will vote. He does not need to be present or to attend any meetings or read any legislation. It is all dictated for him. We can fill in the blank for his vote while he sits on a street corner begging for change.
Gone are the days when Congressmen were Statesmen.
There is an election coming. Register to vote if you haven’t. VOTE even if you have been slacking. Make this one count.
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
You are delusional, can’t do the math and stand to lose everything You ever worked for.
Get ready for a Career change.
@Old Trooper:
It’s interesting that the people who best understand the health care system, those who work in it everyday, those who bill private insurance companies, Medicare, and who also have to bill patients everyday and have to live with the consequences — overwhelmingly are in favor of not merely health care insurance reform but also are in favor of a public option. This was shown in rigorous, recent, peer-review studies, which I’ve referenced before. These would be the doctors who actually work in the system and see how it works.
Those most in favor of both reform and general and public options in particular are primary care physicians — pediatricians, family medicine doctors, internal medicine doctors, geriatricians. Those who are opposed tend to be the likes of plastic surgeons and other surgical specialists who perform lucrative elective surgeries. The health care system today rewards procedures and treatments like chemotherapy (oncologists do very well, under the current system — there’s an interesting chapter in the new book Super Freakonomics which goes through the numbers regarding the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy, relative to the huge amount which is spent on it — something like 40% of all Medicare drug costs). The present system doesn’t reward cognitive medicine — a wise doctor diagnosing a condition and coming up with an effective treatment which doesn’t require some sort of a procedure. This will probably change, somewhat, under a reformed system, but, overall, a majority of all major classes of physicians are in favor of both reform and a “public option.”
I appreciate your concern for my well-being, Old Trooper, but I can take care of myself, under both current and proposed systems. You don’t need to worry about seeing doctors in homeless shelters or collecting unemployment compensation, no matter what system emerges.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Greg (#14): Your numbers (or Reuters’ numbers) are crazy/nuts. And there’s also tons of fraud which goes on in purely private insurance.
When talking about the country going broke, and whatever, you’ve got to realize that — one way or the other — people need health care and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us. We can pay for it in insurance premiums (again, rising 15% this year alone, for small businesses, which are the biggest segment of the engine of our economy, even as the insurance buys less — more exclusions/more limits/more pre-authorizations/higher deductibles/higher co-pays) or you can pay for it in taxes, but the taxes buys more for less.
We are moving to a system where we’ll have a base level of coverage for everyone, improved ability to change jobs, because people won’t be stuck in jobs they don’t like just because they won’t risk losing their health coverage, and we’ll still have the ability to buy supplemental insurance, if we wish to receive concierge levels of care. This is the essence of the German/French/Japanese systems, where there is a conspicuous absence of death panels and other straw bogeymen. All these systems are faced with the same challenges of rising costs which have nothing to do with the forms of payment, but which have everything to do with technology advances. So all health care systems have problems which are going to continue to require continuous adjustment. This is precisely where we are headed, as anyone with the ability to look down the road can see. And Obama will get the credit in the history books as the President who made it happen.
A further thought about “rationing” (which already goes on — and which goes on much more in the private health care sector than in Medicare): The reality is that we can’t pay for every conceivable treatment, for every conceivable patient, whether in the public sector or private sector. We currently have new cancer drugs which cost $10,000 per month and which require a year’s worth of treatment to extend life by an average of one month. The next generation of drugs may cost $20,000 per month to extend life by an additional month. Is one month of life worth $120,000? Is it worth $240,000? At what point is the extra month not worth whatever it costs to deliver it? Again, this is nicely discussed in “Super Freakonomics.”
These are real world problems, which are emerging each month, and, down the road, anyone can see that it will only get worse (until we get penicillin for cancer). These problems have a hope of being addressed and managed with the likes of “Obamacare,” but they won’t be managed by any idea which any Republican has ever offered, at least in public. Obama and the Democrats are the responsible adults, in this case, while the GOP are the children playing blind man’s buff and kick the can down the road, while trying to scare the bejeebers out of everyone with hysterical buzz words like “death panels” and “rationing” and “socialism.”
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
people need health care and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
What is health without the true basics of life?
people need food and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
people need shelter and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
people need clothing and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
People need liberty and freedom. If government provides everything and thus “dictates” based on the availability or usage of what government provides, how much of our liberty and freedom will we need to give up for the security to have government providing everything?
If the government takes away some of our liberty and freedom someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
I shouldn’t even be posting this eve since I’m short on patience. But this one, Larry….. steam from ears. What a load of horse manure.
Do NOT… I repeat… DO NOT represent your personal circle of friends as the majority here. You want to spread this crap around FA over and over, you’d better come up with something other than your own personal career and reputation as definitive truths. Much as I respect you and your calling, you are only one citizen of this nation here. You are not the mouth piece for your collegues.
And that you even try to pull this shit off is unbelievably offensive.
The rest of your diatribe? Been there, done that with you. You purport the French system as close to perfection, then diss our US system for it’s imperfections. I’ll tell you what, Larry. I’ll take our imperfect private, capitalist system over your and Obama’s touted also-imperfect system any day of the week. Ultimately, since your crowd holds power, those currently in Congressional power are either idiots or turncoats, *and* capping it off with the fact that your icon POTUS is willing to be the sacrificial lamb to convert the US to a Euro-Socialist nation, I’d say you’re going to get what you want in health care. All of you will sanctimonously ignore the wishes of very vocal, non-militant American voices simply because you will decide you know what’s best for all of us in your unmitigated and unforgiveable arrogance.
My only hope is that you … and your children and grandchildren…. live long enough to see the fruits of your political labor. And perhaps you’ll sit with them on your stoop and a rocking chair someday, and regale them with the United States you lived to see in your day, and carelessly tossed to the political wolves in your ultimate stupidity. May that great nation of achievement and excellence RIP.
Larry re: the abortion issue (#4)
Larry regardless of “who’s paying”, the ‘ Obamacare abortion plan’ is vastly misunderstood if relegated to a “number’s issue.” Everyone who wants an abortion always finds a way to pay for it, even if they need to go on a payment plan.
To a conservative, ‘Obamacare abortion’ is like a “ Roe v Wade on steroids.” It’s bad enough we have to live with a totally unconstitutional Roe v Wade, but for the United States, to “socialize abortion” is beyond egregious (unlike a private insurance company that is simply making a “business decision.”)
Who, more than any country in the world, is the greatest protector of human life? Well, we know who it won’t be much longer if Obama gets his way.
I will take bets with anyone interested that there is absolutely NO WAY ‘Obamacare’ will ever pass without abortion coverage or with a conscience clause. Consequently, after our congress has sold it soul for the final votes, I suggest they do us a favor and burn the Declaration of Independence with the signing; why pretend to play the game any longer on the sellout of America?.
I also have to bring attention here to a bit of irony regarding Obama’s “closest advisor, Anita Dunn, who “so often turns to her greatest ‘political’ (yeah, like Mother Teresa was ever the least bit ‘political’) philosopher Mother Teresa. The irony is this: Mother T, also a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, passionately warned that “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” I guess our Nobel Peace Prize winner most pro abort president in US History didn’t get that little bit of wisdom from his ‘Mao advisor’, unless of course, O’care is really about power and control. Just sayin’.
Can someone get me out of spam #24? Thanks
What’s the baseline these guys are calling for where you get “free” healthcare??? how poor is poor?? If everyone ends up basically paying for a plan…. isn’t this more an act of COWARDICE than “reform”??? I mean if most of us already have coverage (I do) .. wouldn’t it be EASIER to just “bill” (and ENFORCE IT) those who freeload?? Work payoff programs and the like??? You owe a big bill, and uncle sugar pays.. you work for uncle sugar till you are paid up! Those who don’t, or cry that “slavery” crap…. there’s the door!!
it seems it’s ALWAYS this way!! Easier to pork Joe Taxpayer than to tell Ted Freeloader to pony up or beat feet!!!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Still pushing that lie that the majority of doctors are for this monstrosity?
Give it up Larry. It wasn’t funny the first time and now it’s just sad.
@Mata, @Mike
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/14/e24
This most recent study is entirely consistent with the results of another peer-reviewed study, published in a different medical journal, a couple of months ago.
P.S. (to Mike): Your cavalier use of the verb “to lie” is a reflection of the sad state of political discourse in general, circa 2009.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@pdill (#24):
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=20991
- Larry W/HB
Larry, for every poll you cite how doctors just love this public option bit, there are polls that state the opposite. But as you are a fan of the NEJM as the quintessential final word of fact… as if asking 2130 doctors is a definitive statement of anything save that only 43% of them felt strongly enough to return the survey questionaire at all. Of those 90% were urban practitioners for their various specialties, and 70% were operating primarily out of hospitals. So again I will say to you, you may be able to speak for yourself, and perhaps your circle of friends. We’ll even give you the benefit of adding the 58.3% of those 2130 responders (or 1241 more physicians) who agree with you.
Considering that the BLS put the number of physicians and surgeons in the US at 633,000 in 2006, the opinions of 1241 is tandamount to .000196% of the number of medical professionals three years ago… and likely even less today if you are correct the field is growing in number.
Forgive me if I’m not wow’ed by your statistical proclamations.
The responders were reacting to a proposal that genuinely combined private/public options…. altho 58% of the physicians were specifically in support of lowering the Medicare age to 55… not offering it to the world at large. That’s significantly different that what the House bill that passed is proposing. But then, they weren’t asked if they support Pelosi health care… they were asked if they support public/private options… which we *already* have in Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. You might as well be asking them if they like turkey when there’s a chicken in the oven.
Let’s talk about your business decision to opt out of the public option because of the financial drag on your business yet again…. You cut the Medicare public option patients for a “concierge” service. Your “concierge” service will be defunct as this public option becomes the sole insurance provider… as it is designed to do, and as Obama and his supporters openly claim is their goal. You will no longer have the private concierge option to pay your prices, and you too will be stuck with whatever panel of czars decide is a fitting payment for your services.
I look thru the NEJM various supporting documents for your prized poll, and I see nothing that indicates these 1241 responders either understand that single payer is the goal with this legislation, or that they want to see single payer as the end result. In fact, I see just the opposite…. that they are fine with working with the current system of private and public options that exist, perhaps extend the Medicare benefits to 55+ and nothing more.
Funny… that’ ain’t what’s happening, is it?
On a wholly different tangent than the “physicians want this” argument Larry again presents, this Larry comment is a bit more in line with the original topic:
First, Larry… no on denies that the cost of health care is going up. And of course the privately insured are eating their shorts since they are making up for the windfall loss that the *public* option incurs for the medical providers.
And we already have debunked the “insurers getting rich” BS talking point when it’s revealed they are functioning on an approx 2% profit margin.
This brings us to the visual aid above… a graph of lots of different bureaucrats, to be paid for by the taxpayer (perhaps the quest by Obama to get some of those jobs he promises to create?). Is the math so fuzzy that the costs of these new bureaucracies isn’t accounted for in that trillion dollar price tag? Afterall, this is part of “the costs”.
And since when has adding gargantuan administrative overhead costs ever been effective in lowering costs for a business?
The point of any “reform” is to lower costs. The goal of any “remaking” of health care is to reinvent the wheel in the image of Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s social utopia. They do so love to spend other people’s money. And despite a budget this year that’s three times the size of last year’s budget, their efficiency has not improved. But their thirst for yet more control of the taxpayers’ money grows insatiability.
Reform? Bunk… This is Obama carrying out his promise to “fundamentally” remake American into his father’s dreams. This legislation is designed to destroy health care as we know it… not bring down costs.
@Mata (#30):
Mata, it is perfectly appropriate for you to fault polling methodology, or whatever, but that’s not what you were doing, when you wrote:
Can you at least acknowledge that your representation (#23) of what I was doing in my post (#20) was inaccurate?
With respect to your comments about statistical sampling, this is how all polls work. The 43% response rate is pretty good, by the standards of most polls, as is the size of the sample. My statement (quoted in the first paragraph of #28) was entirely supportable, as written.
Let’s elaborate on this: Yes, I dropped out of Medicare, because I didn’t like their reimbursement level. But this was at a time when many of the large private insurers (e.g. Blue Cross, Aetna, United Healthcare) didn’t pay anything, leaving their clients (my patients) to pay the whole bill (my patients won 16 of 16 cases against Blue Cross in small claims court, for amounts ranging from $1500 to $4500, but still Blue Cross kept denying, because most cancer patients don’t want to go through the stress of doing this). P.S. Just got another shout out, passed along only since your brought this up:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/284/2/lang,english/
With regard to the US government ever “outlawing” the “private option,” that’s an entirely theoretical risk; “private options” exist in Germany, France, Japan — even in England, where the majority of physicians are actually government employees, unlike in any of the other Western democracies. But, even in England, there are private practitioners and a “private option.” It’s virtually inconceivable that a “private option” would ever be OUTLAWED here. In any event, it’s the same sort of scaremongering as “rationing” and “death panels.”
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I’d be happy to “acknowledge” misinterpretation had I done so. But I didn’t. You definitively stated that those who know best… who work in the medical profession……overwhelmingly are in favor of not merely health care insurance reform but also are in favor of a public option. This was shown in rigorous, recent, peer-review studies, which I’ve referenced before.
I have taken your peer-review an showed you facts you tend to ignore. That we already live in a world with public/private options. Why wouldn’t most physicians agree to continue to support our existing public/private combination? Duh wuh
I also pointed out that your idea of “overwhelming” is less than, dare I say it?, overwhelming.
What you glossed over was that the “public option” the physicians favored was the expansion of existing Medicare to citizens 55 and older.
Again… the NEJM asked the physicians/surgeons if they liked turkey while they were baking a chicken in the oven.
Now, don’t be inserting the word “outlaw” into my comments. I have never said that the O’Pelosi care was “outlawing”, banning or any other similar term relating to private health care. What I have said, and what other Congressional leaders, including Obama, have said, is that this is a step to single payer… THE option they prefer.
Let me repeat that slowly… this is a step to single payer. Digest thoroughly, please.
There will be no need to “outlaw” or “ban” private insurance. It will simply be driven out of business by the bloated government public option.
And please spare us more comparisons of other countries. The chicken in the oven that you are labeling as turkey does not resemble France, Germany or anyone else’s. Yet if you were to find those that shared the most similar structure to Obama/Pelosi proposal, it would be Canada and England.
>>Let me repeat that slowly… this is a step to single payer. Digest thoroughly, please.<<
There isn't anything in the House bill which remotely hints at "single payer." I'm sure that there are lots of things which Barack Obama might wish for, which he'll never get. A "single payer," with a total government monopoly which doesn't exist even in England may be his secret wish, but if wishes were dollars, we'd all be rich.
It's the same thing as rationing and death panels. Just more scaremongering.
You accused me of basing my statements on personal opinions of me and my friends. This was wrong.
You misrepresent the NEJM study.
No, this was an entirely separate issue (see Panel A, in the referenced paper).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata (reply to your #33 went to spam)
While waiting for my prior reply to Mata’s #33 to appear:
WTF ????
Where in the world did you get that gem of an analogy?
- Larry W/HB
There isn’t anything in the House bill which remotely hints at “single payer.” I’m sure that there are lots of things which Barack Obama might wish for, which he’ll never get. A “single payer,” with a total government monopoly which doesn’t exist even in England may be his secret wish, but if wishes were dollars, we’d all be rich.
>>Damn you’re good!! Read and digested ALL 1900+ pages since Saturday night!! How’d YOU get a full copy of the new bill so Quick???
>>Rep. John Conyers (D) (of course! who else would say something so STUPID on Nationwide TV!)
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
>> So are we supposed to believe you ALSO have a law degree??? According to the PARTY in
POWER you are NOT ABLE to understand this new law WITHOUT at least TWO lawyers and 2(3?) (the bill THEN was SMALLER so add a day now) days….. if you are a lawyer, then I guess we’re up to 4-5 days seeing you are only ONE lawyer and the Democrats say you NEED TWO…. don’t look at me, I’m only quoting the guys who WROTE the damn thing!!
Well, didya???
What is SICK is that a guy, with that kind of an ASSININE mentality, is “LEADING” this country??? Writing and passing LAWS we’re stuck with, and the Buffoon ADMITS they don’t have a CLUE what they are LEGISLATING….. and neither the MSM or Oppostion party even CALLS them on it!!! Or his own Constitutents don’t demand his FIRING!! (recall, impeachment, whatever process)
@Hankster:
Let’s say that you are going to “reorganize 16% of the economy.”
How many pages would you feel are appropriate for describing how this objective is to be achieved?
2,000?
1,000?
500?
100?
10?
1?
What type of an organization chart? What’s the maximum number of permissible boxes and lines and arrows?
Just curious.
It’s a gargantuan undertaking. A breathtaking undertaking. I’m sure that they didn’t get it totally right; probably made some really boneheaded mistakes. It’ll no doubt get reshaped, not only by the present Congress and President, but also by future Congresses and future Presidents. But it’s a beginning. True health insurance portability (which will allow people to change jobs and to change states, without having to base this decision on whether or not they’ll lose their insurance coverage). No lifetime limits on coverage. Dramatic expansion in people covered. There’s much more to like than to loathe, in my opinion.
- Larry W/HB
Larry, re: the Bishops and abortion, no worries (to the dems), it means nothing; won’t last. Besides, how could anyone, Bishop or FA reader, have a valid debate when all was done in secret and deception? What the Bishops did was for the most part meaningless, good intentioned or not, if for no other reason they where “blinded” to the whole bill.
Here’s an accurate take on it (short read).
Excerpt:
@pdill:
I don’t agree. The Senate is more conservative than the House. Whatever bill gets finally passed and signed into law WILL have the robust provisions that (1) no “public option” plans can pay for abortion and (2) no private plans subsidized with public money can pay for abortion.
I don’t know how you can criticize the Bishops for supporting the bill.
What’s more important, a “conscience clause” or reducing abortions? Abortion rights advocates are furious about this, and with good reason. Millions upon millions of women will be moving from private plans, which pay for abortions, to public and public-subsidized private plans, which will not pay for abortions. This will clearly reduce abortions in this country and how can you criticize the Bishops for supporting this?
The House bill has a very important provision which will clearly reduce abortions and the bill is supported by Catholic bishops, who have always been in favor of not only reducing abortions but improving access to health care through government-funded mechanisms. I don’t know why the bill should not, therefore, be supported by the Catholic laity.
The conscience clause can be a separate war, to be fought another day.
Personally, I strongly support the prohibition of public funds from even indirectly subsidizing abortions which are performed for reasons other than rape, incest, and threat to the life (not “merely” health — which is an exception open to abuse) of the mother. I hope (and believe) that this provision will remain in the final bill ultimately signed into law by the President.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125779914376639381.html
It’s a gargantuan undertaking. A breathtaking undertaking. I’m sure that they didn’t get it totally right; probably made some really boneheaded mistakes.
>>>So why the mad rush to cram this “overwhelming change” through??? How about, bite by bite, step by step??? And GET IT RIGHT!!! Think it through….. but no…… HURRY HURRY or we’re DOOMED!! B.S.!!!
The darn thing isn’t supposed to go into effect until what, 2013??? (Note:AFTER the next ELECTION.. COINCIDENCE”????? NOT!!) So there is PLENTY of time to work thru this and do it, RIGHT!! So why the mad dash??? To jam it thru BEFORE anyone had the time to study it….
If not, explain WHY!!!
The left keeps claiming that “Bush” used “emergencies” to do his “evil deeds”…..
Obama is doing the EXACT same thing…. Crisis!!~ Crisis!! Crisis!! Some “Change”…….
Abortion-rights advocates say it marks the biggest change in federal abortion policy in years and significantly erodes access to the procedure.
>>The bill isn’t FINISHED tho is it?????
Also….”"Let’s say ….that you are going to “reorganize 16% of the economy.””
>>ok…. lets ASK… Is it even CONSTITUTIONAL for the Government to stick it’s nose in and DO this?!?!?!?!
@Hankster:
Why not take it “step by step?” Because it will never get done that way. It’s a bold initiative; getting it through is taking the mother of all legislative sausage-making efforts.
By the time it finally gets signed into law, there shall have been lots of time for everyone to get their voices heard. From Tea Parties and Town Meetings and marches on Washington in the summer to opinion polls to cable television to talk radio to mainstream media to blogs to op-eds to Sunday morning news/interview shows to debate on the House and Senate floors. This is one issue which isn’t slipping in, under the horizon.
Why not wait? Well, for one thing, the Dem majority may very well be a thing of the past, come January 2011. National health care was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt and it’s never been done yet. Of course, conservatives will protest and oppose it. George Will pointed out that this is why we have two parties. Checks and balances.
Often stalemate. But occasionally something big does get done.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Because it will never get done that way.
>> Maybe it SHOULDN’T “get done this way”!!! So you agree it’s a “ram it down their throats like it or not” approach!!
By the time it finally gets signed into law, there shall have been lots of time for everyone to get their voices heard.
>> And IGNORED….. see above attitude… “my way or the highway”!! you said it….not me!
Why not wait? Well, for one thing, the Dem majority may very well be a thing of the past, come January 2011.
>> So without a POWER majority, the right thing won’t be done??? Or, is it the LIBERAL thing won’t be done!! You know, if the MAJORITY wants something, be they left or right in the majority… the voters most likely will FORCE their way… getting voted OUT of Office is a great motivator…. the TRUTH here is…. the left needs to do this BECAUSE they KNOW, once they do this, they’re gone…
so KICK EM while we CAN!!! Great attitude…. if the plan is good, AND it’s needed, it’ll get passed REGARDLESS of who is in charge…. Democrats know this, which is why they are pushing so hard….. because given a CHOICE… they know a public vote would DEFEAT it!!!!
Lastly….. I see, in typical Liberal fashion, you totally IGNORED my question on “Is it even LEGAL”???? You know, that pesky ol Constitution???? But then again…. those BAILOUTS were most likely not Constitutional EITHER… so legit or not don’t seem to be an issue to this administration…. is THAT the new “liberal” way???
@Hankster:
I didn’t ignore it, and I’m not a “typical liberal” (well, maybe by FA standards, but not by real world standards). I didn’t comment on your question because I’m not a constitutional scholar. I presume it’s legal, because, of all the arguments made against it, illegality has not been on the front burner of complaints.
And, yes, I agree with you that this whole thing is entirely political. The Dems didn’t put in the anti-abortion provision because they wanted it, it’s there because they had to put it in in order to get it passed. But it is there, and it’s a better bill because of it. Very effective politicking by the Catholic Bishops. Rather than yelling at town meetings and obstructing, they effectively used their political clout to get the bill changed for the better.
The GOP wants malpractice tort reform? Simple, agree to vote for the bill and in goes tort reform. Or else bellow and whine and get nothing. The GOP isn’t out to get the best bill possible, it’s out to kill the bill. I’m not saying that the GOP is totally wrong and I’m not saying that the Dems are totally right. But politics is the art of the possible. They are doing what’s possible, not what’s ideal and not what could be done if the party out of power wanted to leverage the best deal it could, as opposed to betting the ranch on killing the bill. That’s their choice.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry W :
What change? Other than the windfall tax monies that get funneled into corrupt Planned Parenthood, the government has never paid for abortions. Who can keep up with the deceitful rhetoric of these folks? Isn’t it good enough that they have the ‘legal’ right to kill their unborn children, but now they want the government to PAY for it? Nonsense, and so is the fact that abortions will decrease. If they want an “abortion bill”, they need to elect someone who will work for one, this is “healthcare” remember? Perhaps someone needs to remind them that the US Government is designed to protect life, not kill it.
And that brings me to my main point: that this is all a game. I guarantee you, if abortion isn’t part of the package, ‘health’ care simply won’t happen, it’s that simple.
Larry I do respect the fact that you are against abortion personally, especially the bogus ‘mother’s health’ clause, which pretty much invalidates any bill since “emotional stress” could mean the same thing as an ectopic pregnancy. I just wish you were against it “enough” that the thought of voting for a party that supports it would be inconceivable to you.
Since Obama’s election, I conceded that “politically”, we lost the abortion war. It’s bad enough to have it legal, but it’s unimaginable to think that the US of A will be “providing” them; border line eugenics, I think, since over 50% of them will eliminate African Americans. It’s never been a coincidence that Planned Parenthood has the bulk of their clinics in black neighborhoods.
well now we’re getting somewhere!
It’s not legal from the standpoint that federal gov has no legal standing to be getting into, or interfering with, PRIVATE business!!! Now, legally “regulating” is one thing, but getting INTO the business of off the scale…….
They did it with the car companies…..
AIG etc…..
It seems following the law is the furthest thing from the minds of those in DC these days…. which is WHY i give them ALL a “NO vote!!!
As to “agree to this and you’ll get a “gimmee”….. umm isn’t that the kind of stuff “Tony Soprano” would have pulled??? You give me this, and give you THAT??? Your principles be damned…. you’re all for sale!! An offer you “can’t refuse” ???? Why not just SELL their votes??? THAT right THERE is why this country is falling FAST!! We’re selling our souls.. “for a deal”….
Sorry, but that’s not the government as it was explained to be back when I was in school…..
@pdill:
You don’t understand the coup the Catholic Bishops pulled off.
Millions upon millions of women are now covered by private insurance which pays for abortions. Under the new health care law, millions upon millions of these same women will receive government subsidized private insurance or a “public option” — neither of which will pay for abortion.
The more people who switch from a private plan to a public plan, the fewer abortions.
Now, you’ve got a plan endorsed by the Catholic Bishops, which provides health care for more people and which results in fewer abortions.
But you are worried because somehow it’s going to be about evil Obama staying in power long enough to gain power over life and death and kill babies and grandma?
The Bishops have got it right. I support their continuing efforts in shaping the final form of health care reform which emerges.
Do you?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I see Larry’s engaged in multiple conversations in my absence. So forgive me for regressing to address some of our back and forth.
Responses to @Larry’s #34.
First and foremost, of course there isn’t a “hint” using the words “single payer” in these multiple proposed bills. If they used those words specifically, the bill would be shot on sight and DOA. However just because the words “single payer” are not used, does not mean the end goal is exactly what Obama and sundry others have stated as their desire. I will remind you with the video below.
Not enough? Let’s check out a few of those unimportant Obama associations and partners in Congressional crime.
Naw… single payer just *couldn’t* be the goal, right? And your quest is not really to cure cancer…. right. sigh
Secondly, perhaps you may want to brush up on the definition of “single payer” which means that the payments are controllled by a “single payer”… ala the government…. whether the services are administered in govt or private facilities. By Congressional notions, they are creating a system that functions from a medical trust fund account. And we all know how those “trust fund” accounts go… as the SS fund has been empty for years from Congressional looting. Any “public option” is designed as a “single payer” with payments collected and held by federal entities, and reimbursements decided by public entities.
Which then brings me to@your other “WTF?” comment INRE my analogy of the House O’healthcare as resembling NOTHING that other nations have, but certainly closer to Canada or England than to France.
As I pointed out, the Obama/Pelosi (ultimately) socialized medicine will be collecting the cash for the gov’t coffers, and gov’t will control the reimbursements and handling of those funds. Additionally, they are slamming employers with mandates, and penalities if they don’t fall into line. Individuals will be penalized if they don’t have proof of insurance, all which is tied into IRS time… filing tax returns. Get my drift so far?
By contrast, the French system’s money, per a June 2009 Medical News Today article, is controlled by employer and unions with gov’t oversight. Nothing similar to France when it comes to who gets, and doles out, the money. There are no mandates on employers, nor are citizens fined and penalized via their tax returns.
Let’s compare the Obama/Pelosi take-the-money-and-run plans with Canada now… again, from this year’s Medical News Today, Canada’s system is funded thru their sales and income taxes (i.e. a mandate thru their tax system) and is, as they describe it, “socialized insurance”. Meaning the nation becomes a huge risk pool. The low risk pay more, the high risk pay less. Very socialized utopia, don’t you think? Well, maybe if you’re in the high risk group. I’m quite sure the low risk feel quite skewered.
However unlike the greedy wench, Pelosi, the Canadians let their provinces and territories set the budget and administer the funds. At least Canada’s government brings it down to local levels, and doesn’t place the power of the money and decisions in the hands of the federal honchos.
While we’re comparing that “gem of analogy” you are missing since you aren’t paying much attention to details, let’s talk about England’s health care and their recent “payment by results” changes…. you know, the same stuff the libs talk about when they want to reimburse doctors based on performance? Oh, even in it’s early evaluation stages, England has found a reduction in costs. Overall that’s good. But then, that depends upon the meaning of “performance”, don’t you think? And, of course, the time. Can we assume that someone in excruciating pain may certainly feel better and somewhat immune from what ails them if the drugs mask the problem instead of curing the problem?
On this “performance pay” bit, I’m still the jury out. Not sold on it entirely until I see just what the measures of successful “performance” and “results” are. But that’s another story. Right now, we’re discussing whether the odd ball US proposals (which I still say resembles no one) are closer to Canada or England than they are to France. The French have no “pay for results” reimbursement criteria.
So far it looks like the US Congress has taken the talking point of “French health care public/private options” (which we *already have* here), and mutiliated it into Frankenstein healthcare by incorporating all of the worst features of the worst systems to give it life.
Now let’s go back to the “single payer” definition from medterms.com again….
Doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from government. We already have “socialized medicine” by those standards with the military VA benefits and facilities. Let’s look at Obama’s long range plans… pay for education (medical would top his list…). Similar to France there in that the State pays for their education and they work for govt hospitals.
You’ve opted out of low ball reimbursements for your financial health. You did this for your own survival. And Larry, as much as I bring this up over and over, I’m trying to make a point. I applaud your survival instincts. I do not applaud your drive to create a system where you will be forced into a system where the majority of the nation’s citizens will not enjoy the fruits of your research and accomplishments. You will not be reimbursed your costs by a single payer, govt controlled public option. And their very existance will destroy the private insurance market as unaffordable but by the most wealthy… assuming we have many left after all this spending frenzy that tripled the budget and massively ballooned the national debt to the unimaginable in under a year.
There doesn’t need to be the words “single payer”… or as you understand it to be “socialized medicine”… in these bills. They are designed as the first step to just that system. They won’t tell you that you are buying a Volkswagen when you think you’re buying a Cadillac. They’ll let you figure that out a few years downline.
Larry said; “The more people who switch from a private plan to a public plan, the fewer abortions.”
That is yet to be proven. And if the numbers of abortions per year increases after most people switch to a public health insurance plan? Look, I am not for banning abortion. I just don’t believe what you said on your post.
MataHarley,
Very informative, it couldn’t have been said better.
Wrong perspective. One would hope that the GOP is not out to compromise bad legislation with a single concession.
The bill needs to be killed not for political reasons. But because it’s legislation that will fiscally destroy this nation as we know it forever, and accomplish nothing but provide equally mediocre care for all citizens. Period. There is NO COMPROMISE for that, and for American excellence in volume of state of the art facilities and quality care.
And if the GOP attempts to “compromise” on pithy and pitiful orts merely for political points, they have lost whatever sliver of appeal they have over Dems eternally. That is a promise from me…. a voter until the day I die.
The Catholic Bishops may have won a battle, but not the war. As long as tax dollars are going to Planned Parenthood, we are paying for abortion in spite of the Hyde Amendment. Passing the abortion amendment in the health care bill will not prevent our tax dollars from being thrown in Planned Parenthood’s pot from another part of our budget.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/u-s-house-votes-to-continue-taxpayer-funding-for-planned-parenthood/
We’ve had denials all the way up to the president that abortion funding was in the health care bill, funny how it took arm twisting and finally relenting to an amendment to ban something not in the bill. Funnier is how angry that amendment made a sizeable chunk of the House democrats, they may be the ones that scuttle this whole fiasco over something that wasn’t in the bill.
After watching the spat between Rangel and Boehner, that non existant funding might be put right back in the bill during the reconciliation process, which would lose the votes of the dem pro-lifers that just got what wasn’t in the bill, out of the bill. Oh what fun democrats can be, wonder which wall they will eventually decide to slam into, sigh.
This has even got the high trafficked abortion rights supporting, lefty blogs in a fightin’ mood. They’ve already got the list of those pro-life traitors and are going to get rid of them. Twill be interesting to see how they manage to challenge primaries in blue dog districts by funding liberal candidates to replace them. The little foot stompers are soooo cute when they are mad. Their common sense must have escaped from that hole the anger burned in the top of their pointy little heads. I’m thinking the “American people” aren’t really in the mood for these characters anymore.
@Mata
Regarding “single payer:”
To quote you:
Please read what you wrote. These are your words. You are absolutely, 100% correct. Which is precisely why all your talk of “single payer” is simply fanciful scaremongering. Not one bit different from the hysterical scaremongering of “death panels” and “rationing.”
You scolded me earlier for putting words into your mouth when I stated that it is your position that, under the Dem plan, private insurance would be “outlawed.” Well, unless private insurance is “outlawed,” we don’t have “single payer,” do we? So you are making the ridiculous claim that passage of any of the health care reform laws being offered would lead to a situation where private insurance was outlawed. This is hysterical scaremongering. Obama the legislator was a liberal, with no power. Obama the President has the power to wage war, but no power to legislate, and he is a pragmatist, whom the likes of David Brooks describes as governing from the broad center, even though virtually all of the FA commenters liken his executive governance to Marxism.
You keep referring to my opting out of Medicare. As I keep saying, but which you keep ignoring, I did this because Medicare wouldn’t pay me enough — HOWEVER –this was at a time when a number of the private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, United Healthcare) wouldn’t pay anything, requiring their own clients (my patients) to pay 100% out of pocket. Except in the 16 of 16 cases where my patients took them to court and won their cases. Medicare meets the definition of a “single payer” system (a wildly popular one at that; the termination of which would be a genuine political third rail). Yet I was able to opt out. Choice and diversity.
The Pelosi bill isn’t anything at all like either the Canadian (single payer, which, in your words, would have been “shot on sight” and “DOA”) or British (doctors as government employees; hospitals owned by the government) systems. Hence, WTF. Hysterical scaremongering. Exaggeration and distortion, entirely reminiscent of an Al Gore PowerPoint presentation.
Here’s a very nice description of the philosophy behind the American health care system, from a 1994 paper, written at the time of the collapse of Hillarycare, written from the perspective of a writer who favored the German health care system:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/22.pdf
This is precisely why hysterical cries of “single payer” “single payer” “single payer” are just hysterical scaremongering.
Obama may — on a theoretical level — admire the concept of “single payer,” and so may some other Democrats, but that means outlawing private insurance, and there’s no chance of that happening in the real world.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Missy:
You said:
Now this is interesting. The main concept introducing this thread was that the health care bill was too complicated and tried to do too much. So you find fault with winning a battle, because it didn’t win a broader war.
It’s a HUGE battle that they won. I should also add, it’s the only important battle which anti-abortion forces have won, since … ? Since a whole long time ago. Tell me a bigger battle they’ve won since Roe v Wade.
What you’ve got is outlawing public funds for funding abortion in both (1) the “public option” and (2) publicly-subsidized private insurance. Let’s say that Mata is correct. In her world of hysterical, scaremongering fantasy, we have a “single payer” system, where private insurance in outlawed. In today’s real world, most private insurance pays for abortions and most abortions are paid for by private insurance. So, in a “single payer” system, because of the Catholic Bishops, we’d go from a system of private insurance paying for abortions to public insurance not paying for abortions. This would — beyond the shadow of a doubt — reduce the number of abortions — actually save lives, if you view it is these terms.
Even without a “single payer” system, abortions will go down. Conservatives have been arguing that millions of people will end up with the “public option.” There is no doubt that millions of people will get subsidized private insurance — moved from private plans which pay for abortion to private plans which don’t pay for abortion.
Of course, liberals are screaming. While conservatives continue to scream. What the Catholic Bishops did was to engage in effective politicking. They actually got something done which was very important.
Health care reform is going to pass. Everyone knows this. The Democrats would give their eye teeth to get GOP support. Such support would be important enough that they’d make concessions. I think that malpractice tort reform could be written into the bill, in exchange for GOP support. Or else the GOP could take a “principled” stand against the entire thing and get nothing.
The Bishops worked with the Democrats and achieved a great deal. Vastly more to reduce abortion than anything the GOP was able to do, during their 6 years of power in the Bush years.
The House bill would, I think, be the greatest anti-abortion achievement, dating to Roe v Wade, perhaps. I’m curious: can anyone think of any legislation which came close to achieving what Pelosicare would achieve, if actually signed into law?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I just sent the following emails to both of my state senators (Boxer and Feinstein):
>>>>
I am a pro-choice Democrat and a California-licensed physician (medical oncologist), who is in favor of health care/health insurance reform along the lines of the bills currently under consideration by the US Senate.
Although pro-choice, I believe that health care plans subsidized by public funds should exclude services relating to abortions unrelated to rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.
Furthermore, I believe that there is an obvious political advantage to Democrats in passing such legislation, which, I believe, would be supported by a large majority of the electorate.
I believe that abortion should be available and safe, to those who choose it. I do not believe that the government, through the use of tax dollars, should be funding these procedures, however.
- Larry Weisenthal MD
Huntington Beach, CA
I only mentioned the bishops because that was part of the present conversation, in here. I should have added…..some think. I personally don’t think the bishops carried as much weight behind this amendment as the people from the congressional districts of Stupak and the people’s reps that voted for the amendment.
I also think this issue could possibly be the end of the road for this health care bill. It appears that the democrats have both strong opposition and strong support of abortion within their party. That opposition to abortion within the dem party, btw, would be something I would consider a battle won since Roe v Wade. For too long pro-choice party members have dominated on the abortion issue, another reason why I left that party.
If you think the Catholic Bishops are going to be able to go up against NARAL, NOW, Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, etc. and win, I think you would be wrong. If Rangel and pro-choice dem conferees get the amendment removed at reconciliation, pro-life democrats reject the bill, if it remains, pro-choice members stand down, result… stalemate and a divided democratic party. I repeat, battle won since Roe v. Wade, the nerve of those pro-life dems, don’t they realize the money these groups have invested to get that party to where it is today! They are now refocusing, energized and mad as hell, pro-life member’s races are going to be challenged, no more of this nonsense.
Maybe you might want to spend some time reading some of the hostile comments pro-choice democratic reps have been making since the amendment passed, the reps that have been continuously funded by the above groups. It’s getting ugly.
I’ve also noticed democrats still have all their teeth, a similar amendment was put forth by Pence, R-IN last summer, overwhelmingly voted down on a party line vote. Same with tort reform, no budging, I don’t see them going to the GOP during the midnight hour reaching out so they can get this thing passed. They have made it clear from the beginning it was to be partisan. Baucus was the only member of Congress that reached out to a handful of Republicans, certainly not enough from the other side of the aisle to ever honestly be able to classify this as bipartison.
Larry W:
Ok Larry, in less than a few months, we will know who is right on this. The Bishops of course had a right and obligation to defend the unborn, but politically it will mean nothing. Where is your evidence that the Bishops “worked” with the Dems? I think you are confusing their obligation to protect the unborm with some heroic negotiations which simply didn’t happen. They were played, and I suspect they know it.
Really? What I DO understand is the coldblooded Pelosi who, still calling herself a ‘catholic’, knowingly bamboozled her own Bishops so she could have a political football to kick a bill on life support into the Senate, only to await more thug tactics.
Oh Larry, I hate to burst your bubble over your new found comrades, the Catholic Bishops, but they didn’t endorse anything except doing what they should have done and speak out for the unborn. It was a FRAUD by Pelosi Larry, and totally meaningless. How many ways can I say it that NO FINAL ‘HEALTHCARE’ BILL will ever be passed under Obama without the sanctification of abortion.
Furthermore, we’ve had similar discussions in the past re: the church’s teaching on social issues which, if cherry picked, as you and most libs always want to do, are meaningless. For the sake of refreshing your memory with what you will most likely ignore AGAIN, I refer you back to one of my previous FA posts, especially the links at the bottom of this response, which spell out “The Bishops” real goal, according to the teachings of the CC, in fairly simple terms.
@Per Larry’s comments #55, and @ that I live in a hysterical, scaremongering fantasy world.
Didn’t watch the videos, eh Larry? Rather difficult to put words into the mouths of Obama, Barney Frank, Sebelius, Rahm’bo when you can listen to them state their quest from the Dem donkey’s mouth. But I’m a “scaremonger” living in a “fantasy”??”
Well, the hysterical part might be appropriate as that charge sent me into peals of hysterical laughter! But while we’re all playing amateur mental health doctors, let me return the psychoanalysis, Larry. You’re an intelligent man who is dangerous in your complacency… i.e. refusing to acknowledge what you hear (assuming you actually watched the videos to hear their quest for single payer) and placing blind faith in the lying powerhouses (both parties) that we continually elect to Congress. It is those like you who will join happily with Obama to “remake” America into what you believe is a more just nation. And you and others will do this with nary a care as to the fiscal repercussions of this massive government program. Obviously your education focused more on the anatomy, and considerably less on economic world history.
You say:
Since you insist not on reading links, let me put this where you can’t miss it.. the definition of single payer:
Here’s another from a group with whom you’ll feel comfortable… Physicians For a National Health Plan.
Unless you again wish to morph real definitions, this is all about creating a massive public option SINGLE PAYER financial system. It is nothing short of tunnel vision and, if I may add, “fantasy” on your part to redefine the medical dictionary’s meaning of “single payer” to fit your political schpiel, Larry. You pronounce this whole O’healthcare plan hunky dory because you rest easy that there is no overt “outlawing” of private insurance and I guess are okay with the creation of a huge single payer system.
Then you insist it’s perfectly fine because no where does the huge *single payer* system “outlaw” (YOUR words, not mine) private insurance.
Well one doesn’t have to ban SUVs to drive them out of business either, Larry. Have a look around…. Congress steadily creates regulations and standards that are impossible for a vehicle of that size and power to meet with any profit structure, and voila… we’ll wake up one morning and no more SUVs. They slowly slip from sight… almost indiscerable to the prozac-laden public eyes. Just less and less of them every year.
Yet prior to their demise (and they are on the demise…) did you see a law that “banned” or “outlawed” SUVs?
So it goes with the public option single payer system, overtaking the private free market system.
When you pit one business… with the ability to print (apparently) unlimited money and raise taxes to operate… against a free market business who depends upon a profit and no access to currency printing presses and the taxpayers’ wallets, the free market model will simply die off. Even if there are a few around to create umbrella health policies, there will be fewer choices for competitive pricing, and only the wealthy who can afford the penalties of “cadillac” plans will be able to afford them.
What you, in your stubborn tunnel vision, fails to comprehend is the economic domino effect of government controlled health insurance on other businesses. It is similar to real estate in that when the housing market is down, it affects the financial health of industry related businesses such as home improvement manufacturers and supplies, jobs for contractors/construction… which then affects retail spending power spilling over to other businesses.
Medical is no different. When medical providers… from physicians to facilities… are forced to depend upon the bulk of their payment from lowball government reimbursement rates, cutting overhead in anyway possible will commence in order to make ends meet. This means equipment that will not be purchased (and therefore not manufactured… at least here), salaries that will be reduced (affecting consumer spending), and perhaps using cheaper overseas manufactured products (outsourcing will increase).
Nothing about this Frankenstein health care utopia will benefit this nation fiscally, and in fact will drive it into the ground. Witness Canada, France, England etal…. all in big trouble with their health care. Yes yes… you’re going to say “but it’s because of the rising costs”. Well, Larry… moving to increased single payer systems does NOT reduce costs. Speaking of fantasies, adding 111 bureacratic departments to administer this behemoth will reduce costs about the same time I’m crowned Miss America.
Yet you want to take the leap of O’faith and embark, expecting a different outcome from a model proven time and time again to fail in history. That, Larry, is what I mean when I say you are dangerous. Were you a radical (I guess like me? LOL), uneducated and unable to deliver a smooth debate, you’d merely be written off as a disruptive loon and your dissertations ignored.
But you are well-spoken, educated. Therefore you carry with you a measure of credibility for those who are unaware of all the details, and of the ultimate quest as imparted to the nation from the POTUS lips and supporters themselves. But no… you choose not to hear that. You merely change the definition of “single payer” is order to muddy the debate waters and label historical facts and trends as “scaremongering”.
Would it not be easier for the nation to make a decision if we genuinely acknowledge the words of POTUS and company, telling us exactly what they foresee with this legislation? Instead we can’t have that debate. Why? Because you and too many others ignore the gorilla standing before your nose in the room when you assert there is no “single payer” quest.
Dang… forgive me if I believe the lips of the Eunuch in Chief instead of your “fantasy” interpretations.
I will also suggest you pull out your medical terms dictionary for a reality check. Even some of us less educated dumb dumbs know the meaning of single payer. Hardly a foreign concept since a combo of single payer/private options is our current Medicare/VA system.
Didn’t watch the videos, eh Larry? Rather difficult to put words into the mouths of Obama, Barney Frank, Sebelius, Rahm’bo when you can listen to them state their quest from the Dem donkey’s mouth. But I’m a “scaremonger” living in a “fantasy”??”
>>> this is what I find hysterical…. A guy like Matthews does an “interview” (term used loosely) and even when the “guest” states “he’s going west” Matthews will get arguementative as to why the man is going EAST!! HE DON”T LISTEN to the FACTS if they don’t fit his agenda!!! anyone watching with an IQ above 5 should see this!!
Now what REALLY gets me to laugh Hysterically is those who beat up on, say, Glenn Beck and the like…. Glenn will say something that will just set a Lib OFF…. BUT THEN he’ll run the VIDEO BACKING IT UP!!!!! And they’ll say he’s LYING!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! they will IGNORE EVIDENCE if it is counter to thier “dreamed up fantasy beliefs”……. we want FACTS.. they live in B.S. land….
@Mata:
Regarding “single payer:”
To quote you:
Please read what you wrote. These are your words. You are absolutely, 100% correct. Which is precisely why all your talk of “single payer” is simply fanciful scaremongering. Not one bit different from the hysterical scaremongering of “death panels” and “rationing.” No one is going to outlaw private insurance plans for the general population until a solid majority of Americans is in favor of doing this, which won’t be until long after Obama, Frank, Emmanuel, Sibelius, et al have left the scene.
What I care about is providing health care for all Americans, or as many as possible. I agree 100% with the Catholics Bishops on this. I care about ending lifetime benefit limitations. I care about improving health care insurance portability, so that job decisions are made for economic reasons and not for retention of health care benefits reasons. I care about reducing medical bankruptcies.
I look around the industrialized world and I can’t find a worse health care system than that which exists in the USA, save for the sector of the population which is 65 or older, which has the best health care system in the world. Even if it is a bogeyman “single payer” system. Which a GOP lawmaker would try to kill at his own political peril, as it is the health care plan which has the highest consumer satisfaction ratings of all major health care plans.
Your priorities are different than my priorities. We have an honest difference of opinion which isn’t going away. This is the reason, why, as George Will said recently, we have two major political parties.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mike, thanks for the response and sorry for the delay. I think you may be reading into my post sentiments which I did not express and do not hold. Hopefully I can clarify things a bit.
I don’t recall claiming, or even implying, that people on the right want to see anybody die in a ditch. I do believe, however, that people on the right would like some say in whether, and how much, of their income should be used to assist people in a predicament where they need or want more health care than they can afford.
I’d like to see a system wherein that flexibility extends up to, but not beyond, the freedom to deny palliative care. In fact, by fully reimbursing all such palliative care (including fixed fares for hospital beds and strict regulations for “sufficient care”), and criminalizing any withholding of such care, the government sees that there’s no pressure on health care providers to kick anyone, poor or wealthy, citizen or alien, child or centurian, saint or serial rapist, out into a ditch to die.
Do bear in mind, as good as our modern medicine has gotten, our mortality rate is still holding steady at 100% – we are all going to die, and our nation will quickly go bankrupt if we spare no expense trying to keep everyone alive indefinitely. As such, when it comes to diagnostic and curative treatements, I feel people must take responsibility for their own health (out-of-pocket costs and insurance), or rely on the charitable contributions of the community. In other words, the money spent on *any* individual’s health care must be discretionary, allowing free market forces to flourish. In my proposal, *I* would ensure that my family had sufficient insurance to cover any major medical expenses we might encounter. But for anyone unable to afford or unwilling to pay for the health care they desire, they would need to appeal to the larger community for assistance – and this larger community would have the discretion to invest, say $50,000 to treat a child with leukemia yet withhold $50,000 from treating a 75-year-old smoker dying of lung cancer (along with the discretion to contribute or withhold $2000 for an abortion procedure for a 13-year-old rape victim).
It is my contention that if
1) the governement saw to minimal merciful treatment of everybody,
2) the free market allowed me to supplement this with whatever coverage I desired for myself and my loved one, and
3) charitable structures were in place which had sufficient transparancy (allowing donors to see which cases their contributions were applied toward and withheld from),
the result would be a society which hit the right balance of offering “fair and just” health care to all of its members without bankrupting itself.
I guess I didn’t spell it out… I am certainly *not* a fan of the Dem proposal, largely for all the reasons you cite here.
Likewise, I’d like to know where you got the idea that I got that idea. Anyway, hopefully this response clarifies that I do *not* see members of the GOP in this light.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim said: ” No one is going to outlaw private insurance plans for the general population “
They won’t need to Larry. It’s abundantly clear that the Dems plan is to drive private insurers out of business or to make their plans so ridiculously expensive that only the super rich will be able to afford them.
Most readers here will recall what Obama said about building new coal plants. It was fine with him if they built new coal plants, but his goal was to bankrupt them.
How many Obamatons do we need coming out of the woodwork who have admitted that their goal is to destroy the private insurance market?
@Mike:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is no doubt that SOME Democrats want to drive private insurers out of business. For the sake of argument, let me agree with Mata that this is the secret wet dream of Obama and colleagues. So, how do they drive private insurance out of business? They make the “public option” cheaper. But everyone is on to this. The public plan can only negotiate; it can’t mandate. The public plan has to be run as a business and pay for itself. The public plan will certainly be administered and run by private insurance company contractors. This is the way that Medicare does it. In other parts of the world, “public” and “private” plans manage to co-exist. I have more confidence in the resilience of the American insurance industry than Mata seems to have. Americans will have needs. Private insurers will continue to meet those needs. Until the American people themselves find that the “public” plans serve their needs better than do the private plans. Which won’t be until long after Obama has finished out his second term and the nation is again ready to have a Republican in the oval office.
MY dream scenario is this: The Dems pass health care and then they pass some form of an energy plan which discourages carbon and encourages green energy. Then the Dems get their butts kicked in the Fall (I’ll certainly, yet again, be voting for Rohrabacher, as I generally do), just as what happened in ’94. And then I sit back and enjoy the same golden era of governance which existed circa 1995-1998 (pre-impeachment).
Ah, them’s were the days.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Not much of a secret when it’s on videotape for all who choose to view it…
BTW, you’re repeating yourself on the retort to my comment about them dodging the words “single payer”.
This might be why Pelosi – like you – contributes to the disinformation campaign when she stripped an amendment to the House bill last Thursday that allowed states to pursue single payer systems without insurance industry lawsuits. Why? She said “…it would break President Obama’s commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it.”
Well ain’t that a smooth move. The feds can put in a single payer public option…. which as all of us except Larry know means it’s administered by the government… but the states can’t because it would eliminate private insurance choice.
Anybody besides Larry *not* getting this forked tongue language?
ummmm… yeah, right. What government “public plan” has paid for itself, Larry? The only one that was even somewhat self-sustaining *used* to be the USPO. Not any more.
And I have to love that “pay for itself”. You mean, of course, must be paid for by the taxpayers. Government isn’t some corporation that functions on profits. They exist only by the taxpayers’ dime.
And what’s this horse manure that “…. the public plan will certainly be administered and run by private insurance company contractors” stuff? Did you not read the bill like you didn’t listen to the words “single payer” from Obama’s lips?
Five words for you, Larry. HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE TRUST FUND – created in the Treasury Dept and who’s operation and administration duties fall under the jurisdiction and control of a new bureaucrat appointed by the POTUS called the Health Choice Commissioner. Even the CO-OPs are quasi-member run as these non-profits provide health insurance thru the government controlled HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE. All roads lead back to the feds unless they (the feds) approve an application for a state-based health insurance exchange.
Oh, BTW, that “public option” that you don’t want to acknowledge is single payer in structure? Only offered thru the HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE… back to the feds control again.
The “public option” has premiums determined by the HHS Secy and newly created Commissioner, adjusted for geographics and constantly morphing to insure funding. Can you say rising premiums? The very same problem we are going thru this nonsense for now?
Also, there’s yet another little fed money stash for operations of the public option within the Treasury. I had to laugh when the House bozos wrote in there that, under no circumstances, would it be eligible for TARP funds bailouts. Wow…. not even implemented yet and they’re already discussing what funds can be used for a bailout. Not that it matters. All bailouts – and public option funds – originate with the tax payer’s wallet.
All providers are part of the “public option” network unless they opt out. Got your application ready for that, Larry? May as well make your opt outs across the board, yes?
Therefore your idea of a “private contractor” administered system for this public option is really, at best, a potpourri of subcontracted non-profit operations who do the government’s bidding on reimbursements, accounting etal.
In short, if you bother to read, you’ll find the House “public option” is fully administered and controlled by the government entities already in existance, and the new ones created. It is, by all medical definitions, a *single payer* financing system. Period. You can spin it all you want, but I’m afraid you have grasped onto a sinking twig of debate.
Your wet dream is exactly the plan, Larry. Apparently you and Obama haunt the same ethereal strip bars. Cap and Trade is simmering on the back burner and the quest is to get it thru prior to the December conference. All eyes are turned to O’bamanation for legislation to help legitimize the UN demands for int’l control of emissions and finances.
Yes, it’s entirely possible you may get your way. Neither of these high dollar packages are reversible unless they are done before implemented. We’ve as much chance of that happening within the time frame as we do getting the unspent stimulus monies back in the coffers for Obama’s economics 101 first failed test. So I wouldn’t get too comfortable on your porch stoop or rocking chair, enjoying the retro-circa era you envision. In fact any joy at the passage of both hese heinous laws may be even more short lived that Clinton’s first term.
I repeat, Larry. You are dangerous. I don’t want to live in your and Obama’s idea of the United States. I prefer the one the Founding Fathers created. The legacy of you and your hero President will be the demise of the US as founded. And that’s certainly not a legacy I’d covet.
@mata:
I’ve travelled extensively, to much of the European and much of the Asian world, and I have very good, close friends (mostly people in my own profession) in each place. The USA is never going to be nearly as “socialized” as Europe, Japan, Korea, and even Thailand. Even in Turkey, the lives of educated people are little different from my own. I found nothing to fear, lifestyle and personal freedom wise, in any of these countries, including Turkey.
I don’t fear for our future, Mata. You speak in apocalyptic terms. I suggest that you just buy another gun, lock and load, and hunker down.
Rather than looking for enemies in the White House and halls of Congress, you’re paranoia would be better directed toward our real enemies. Here’s an interesting email I just now received (one of those mass mailing, pass it alongs). Quite thought provoking:
LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact.
The Stupak amendment does not change the status quo:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Dayum!
I hate it when that happens.
@mata:
I just re-read your last post.
I’m “dangerous” – because I — along with a healthy majority of my medical colleagues, are in favor of a health care financing overhaul with a public option and, in fact, would like to see single payer Medicare extended down to age 55?
And because I — like many economists — including conservative economists — see the virtues of taxing carbon, to stimulate alternative energy development, reduce pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil, preserve some of our oil reserves for those who follow us?
I read your messages on this thread, once again. They are filled with hysterical scaremongering and topped off with a lavish dose of paranoia. You envision the mother of all conspiracy theories. One involving not only the West Wing but extending throughout the mainstream media, the medical profession, the Catholic Bishops, and America’s universities. The only people who have not been hoodwinked by this conspiracy are the only people left in this country who are “true Americans,” a descriptor which does not apply to anyone who wants to provide decent health care to all Americans and who wants to leave our children with a little bit of oil to make their own petrochemicals.
America has survived a great many trials and tribulations, since its founding. It will survive Barack Obama just fine, thank you.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/juvalaviv.asp
@Aye (#69):
Beautiful, just beautiful. A perfect example of trying to have it both ways. Did you even read what you linked?
On one hand, MataHarley claims that we are all going to be forced into a public option — which explicitly bars abortion payments. On the other hand, your linked article makes the same claims that the Democrats have been making — that pretty much everyone who has totally private (non-subsidized) insurance will keep that insurance. For these people, the status quo will be maintained — that would be the same status quo which Aye is fighting so hard to maintain.
This would seem to be a win-win situation for conservatives.
Either people keep their existing plans, and the abortion status quo is maintained and there is no creeping socialism.
Or else people move to a public plan or, if they make less than (I think) $80,000 (or whatever — someone can correct me), then they qualify for publicly subsidized private insurance — and these plans also prohibit funding for abortion.
The Catholic Bishops aren’t dumb. In fact, they are political card sharks. The liberals who have just been gored by the Bishops are also not dumb. They know that they’ve taken a huge loss.
My challenge is still up there:
Name a single piece of legislation (or cumulative achievement of the Bush administration) which had a greater impact on reducing abortion than the Pelosi health car bill would have, if enacted and signed.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Curt:
Sweet!
We all know Larry luvs some Snopes sourcing.
I’m surprised he didn’t check that legend out for himself prior to posting it.
Heh.
@curt (#71)
Thanks for correcting that. Should have looked to Snopes it, before posting.
But the terrorism scenario does seem plausible, does it not?
- LW/HB
That’s a hoot, Larry. Getting a lecture about focusing on our real enemies from those that characterize me, or others that think like me, as paranoid Glenn Beck hate speech types. Perhaps you’d do well to consider your own advice.
Anyone – citizen to POTUS – that undermines the Constitution of the US most certainly is my enemy, and is attacking the foundations of this nation. And the 2nd Amendment is there for citizens to hold our freedom. Your flippant dissing of both makes me look at you with increased light… and I’m afraid that light is not very flattering. I’m sure you’re crushed….
Oddly enough, in a pathetic and desperate attempt to paint *me* as a panicked chicken little militia member, you turn to another of Obama’s major failings… national security and the now un-PC war on terror.
Laughable, if not so tragically transparent in light of current events… from Iran to Ft. Hood. From AfPAK to Israel. From Russia to Britain.
I might remind you that it is this admin, that you so admire, who has downgraded these enemies you now emphasize and focused on the crazy soldiers the real enemy. … and in fact, I am quite capable of politically multitasking on both domestic and foreign issues. However our current admin and Congress considers these animals merely another victim class with which to negotiate, and to grant Constitutional Rights while on foreign soil.
I might also remind you that our second 911 attack happened last week, with ample notice, complaints and overt signs to Obama’s military. Yet Obama’s intel mouthpieces immediately jump on air to insist this isn’t “terrorism”. Why so quick to rule out a jihad motive? Because a “terror attack” that was easily preventable on our military bases happened under the Eunuch in Chief’s watch?
Well hey… I guess “da Won” won’t look so bad if we just label it a “horrific act” by an out of control military soldier with PTSD… even tho the guy’s never been to the mid-East theatres. And I’m darn sure that ChrisG, who took only is own life and not that of others under the guise of PTSD, wasn’t screaming Allah is Great at that moment.
To make it worse, Obama’s token RINO appointee – Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey – says our “diversity” is far more important than risking offending a crazy Muslim walking around in a US military uniform, saying Muslim jihad was just. PC appearances trump logical intel. Brilliant line of national defense. Just ask the Ft. Hood widows and families how much they admire that high moral ground of manure.
But heaven forbid we call a spade a spade because it may reflect badly on the Eunuch in Chief. Your Dem Congress and your Dem POTUS are veritable geniuses at health care compared to their grasp of this enemy and foreign policy. You’d do well to confine your praise for them to other fields. Because there are plenty of body bags in Ft. Hood and Afghanistan to prove the inadequacy of this pretend Commander in Chief.
So you.. the man who is paranoid about a nuke device going off in your affluent Orange County backyard on a defunct ammo depot… has nothing to fear about your future? Yet you pass this little ditty on. You really should make up your mind. Or perhaps you are now relieved that your own back yard isn’t among the proposed targets mentioned by Aviv.
Larry, I have not once addressed the public option and abortion. Please keep your enemies list straight. LOL
Nor did I say we were “forced into a public option”. What I said was that the public option SINGLE PAYER system is designed to eliminate private insurers. We will not be “forced”. We will simply no longer have a choice. That is two very different methods of accomplishing the desired end goal.
@mata: Just to clarify one thing:
I did no such thing (diss 2nd Amendment rights). I’m a very strong supporter of second amendment rights. It was a little bit of a dig. Lighten up.
And, pray tell, when did I “flippantly diss” the US Constitution? I’ll take the responsibility (including blame) for statements I made, but not for those that I never made and never for an instant believed.
With regard to trying to hang Ft Hood on POTUS:
I never blamed President Bush for 9/11, and it’s beyond unfair to blame Ft Hood on Obama.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I never said that you did address the public option and abortion. But you have argued that we are to be herded into the public option (single payer). “Forced” by not having a choice. It’s semantics. You are claiming that Pelosi care means inevitable single payer public option. The Democrats claim that the public option will affect very few.
Aye agrees with the Democrats, not with you.
I was simply bemused by this.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I will again remind you, Larry… I have not once mentioned or involved myself with the Catholics, the universities nor the mainstream media. Maybe you better re’read MY comments only.
Hysterical? Only my laughter at you.
Scaremongering? History evidently still not your forte, I see. My “scaremongering” is based on historical trends in other countries who’ve tried the same experiment. Yours are based on love-the-one-you’re-with hopes and dreams. I’ll take the facts and history any day.
Paranoid? That would evoke the notion of fear. I don’t have fear of you, or your choice of leaders, Larry. I have disdain. And that disdain is growing in the nation around you. As I’ve often told you, you don’t predict well, and time will be the ultimate proof in the pudding for you.
I defy anyone here to read my posts and point out my “hysteria” and “paranoia” for arguments against this remaking of America’s health care system. That is shared by many economists, medical professionals and just plain American citizens. And in case you haven’t checked out any of your beloved poll numbers lately, the American public ain’t with you on this one. Get used to it, because bucking the spending and control is only going to increase with time.
Again I will warn you that 1241 responders agreeing with you does not constitute anything close to a “healthy majority” of anything. You want to make that claim? You’d better come up with something that doesn’t exist… like a 100% response of every medical professional in the nation. Other than that, you rest your laurels on a poll… a single poll, I might add. Think that number has any change of being exactly the same from week to week or with a different set of responders? ’tis the nature of polls.
Speaking of hysterical and paranoid, I specifically said you were dangerous because you are intelligent and well spoken, yet you deliberately ignore spoken words and deeds in front of your face to “believe in hope and change”. This habit you have of glossing over details in order to advance your theory works with many because of a credibility issue. When you are so completely in error, and seriously devoid of the specifics of the legislation (vs the talking points you parrot), yes… you are dangerous.
If you wish to expand “dangerous” comment to something issue specific, as you did in your blockquoted comment above, that’s your perogative. But I suggest that comparing your comments to mine indicates you’re spinning your paranoia and naivety dial in the wrong direction, guy.
I’ll accept the explanation of the 2nd amendment “dig”, LW. Thanks for clarifying that point.
Oi Vey! Larry is spinning so furiously I GOT DIZZY and had to sit down before I fell down!
Allow me to add just another tid bit of historical reality to this rabid discussion before I go through myself in the Ocean from frustration:
Here’s Larry’s reality:
This is what will happen if he gets his way: another monstrosity of a government program that eats all the financial resources of the nation out of line with all projections of cost.
That isn’t “scaremongering” that is fact.
Give it up Larry… the game is up and your spin is making you look more and more ridiculous.
Tho this is a subject for another thread, I’ll just say this…. there is no similarity between 911 and Ft. Hood for the looming danger that was specific to the event. With 911, there was a vague memo that mentioned planes as weapons. Hardly a new concept since the Japanese perfected kamakazi attacks in WWII. Yet I did blame legislative walls on sharing intel between CIA, FBI and local law enforcement. That has, in theory, been somewhat corrected if not perfected.
Ft. Hood is a wholly different matter. We had an Army Major with formal complaints, a history, and being watched by the FBI for six months with his contacts with AQ. He was not only given his automatic promotion, but the complaints about him were dismissed as a politically incorrect bombshell in Muslim relations.
Heads should roll INRE Ft. Hood, Larry. This was too obvious, and the man’s position in the military to risky to allow him to continue to serve. With his outspoken actions against the US INRE the ME conflicts, he should have been dischanged (IMHO, *dishonorable dischage to boot) and sent on his merry way. And whatever PC measures that were in place that disallowed defusing this scum of a human should be removed immediately.
As for the Eunuch in Chief…. my comments were less about his personal involvement on a single man’s intel, and more about the lengths that were gone to by the media and his appointees to avoid calling this a terrorist incident. Seriously premature, disingenuous, and apparently very wrong. There is something distinctly unhealthy about this nation’s nanny protective coat around a POTUS. Any cry of disagreement brings the full power of the WH down on the dissenters.
Mata criticizes the New England Journal of Medicine article documenting that a healthy majority of America’s physicians favor overhauling the current health care system with one which includes both a public option and the extension of Medicare to cover down to age 55.
Actually, it was 2130 respondents, which is twice the size of an average Rasmussen poll and which the authors took pains to show was an entirely representative sampling of physicians and surgeons, on a national basis. This wasn’t the first time you misquoted this study; earlier, in more than one post, you emphasized that the “public option” was referring only to the extension of Medicare down to age 55.
Look, we disagree, but I am NOT out of the mainstream of my own profession, which understands the current health care system vastly better than virtually anyone, because we work in the system and see its failings and inadequacies.
It is a certainty that the program will, like Medicare, be delivered through private sector insurance contractors. My statements regarding this were not incorrect. Of course the “health insurance exchange fund” will be run under federal guidelines. Among other reasons, to ensure that these funds are not used to pay for abortions, if the Pelosi bill passes the tests to come.
You talk about the President of the United States subverting the Constitution. Well, if that’s the case, get your congressman to impeach him. Don’t have the evidence for that? Didn’t think so. Hysterical scaremongering, writ large. You accuse me of “dissing” the Constitution (where did I ever do that, I ask you again? You made the accusation; now give me the chance to defend myself. Where did I do that? When did I do that?).
You find sinister plots and motives everywhere you look — rather than simply the efforts of honest, patriotic Americans who have different political viewpoints than yours. This is, indeed, paranoia. Yes, I know, there were plenty of Democrats who spewed the same sort of venom during the Bush Presidency. But two wrongs don’t make a right — even coming from the Right.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Mike (#81):
You and Aye never cease to get try and get mileage out of that misleading table (which Aye shows as a chart).
The implication is that the out of control spending is because of government inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. In point of fact, it’s because of coronary artery angiograms and bypass surgery; it’s because of CT scans, and PET-CT scans, and MRI scans; it’s because of upper and lower GI endoscopy; it’s because of DaVinci robotic surgery machines; it’s because of $10,000 a month cancer drugs, and on and on.
Absent Medicare, we’d have all gone broke, trying to take care of our parents. Medicare has not cost the nation trillions of dollars; it’s saved the nation hundreds of billions of dollars, while providing health care unsurpassed in quality and patient satisfaction.
Item: The cost of private health insurance for small businesses is going up by 15% in this year alone, after doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration. Why is Medicare borderline insolvent? Because it is politically impossible to double Medicare taxes every 8 years, as the private health insurers increase their premiums.
Just more “spinning,” from the token liberal (who’d be considered a conservative on The Daily Kos).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
reply to Mike (#81) went to spam.
Larry, it was 2130 responders, of which only 1241 agreed with you. And I didn’t say the public option was *only* changing the age threshhold of Medicare, lowering to 55. That was, per Panel B, their preferred method of handling the existing public option. They did not advocate it become blanket coverage for the nation.
Nor did I say that the POTUS was subverting the Constitution with health care. Again, that’s your hysteria speaking. I might also add that’s an argument you were having with someone *else*. I question Congressional authority to do this, however the Constitutionality of their actions can only be taken to the SCOTUS after the law is enacted and it’s challenged in a court of law. I can’t go there yet, and do not confuse me with anyone who chose that route at this point in time. You may retract your constant “hysterical” accusations, which appear to be addressing things I did not say, at any time.
We were not discussing Medicare’s administration. We were discussing the new public option’s administration. So perhaps your argument got lost in the keyboard translation. Medicare, as of this bill’s legislation, remains somewhat the same but the control over the specifics of reimbursement and coverage may be transferred to Obama’s precious IMAC health panel he’s got stealth legislation for.
I see “sinister plots”? ROTFLMAO…. ah yes, isolate and demean the “enemy”, then lecture me on focusing on our real enemies. Nice one, LW. No, Larry. I don’t see “sinister plots”. I see a POTUS who campaigned on REMAKING America into a nation country to our founding principles. Therefore, his actions have been no surprise to me in the past 10 months. It must, however, be a surprise to people like you who believed him to be centrist.
Our nation gives us ways to combat this, from peaceful redressing of grievances to outright revolution. I see no “sinister plots”. I see a POTUS and Congress determined to rule the nation in a way that will bankrupt us. I will use every Constitutional avenue to prevent the destruction of our nation’s economy. That’s the way we were founded, and that’s the methods I’ll use.
You, however, are welcome to stick to your Alinksy tactics of debate. Just be aware they are wearing thin on the nation, and the only “transparency” that’s coming about is most of the nation seeing thru the current fiscally crazy leadership and their devoted, deaf, dumb and blind followers.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Despite your clear recognition that the only way to control costs is to ration care and limit procedures it is an undeniable FACT that nearly every government program exceeds it’s cost projection by many factors of magnitude.
Are you also here to defend hammers that the Dept. of Defense bought for $600?
Give it a rest Larry. You’re fighting a losing battle. I doubt there is a majority in the U.S. Senate that agrees with you much less 60 votes.
What a shame you and Obama didn’t endorse the truly bipartisan solutions to this problem that our side has repeatedly brought to the table.
You made your bed, now lie in it!
@mata (quoting you from #86):
I was quoting you from memory, from your #75:
So (again, from memory) I used the word “subvert,” where you had used the word “undermine”
From dictionary.com
un⋅der⋅mine
–verb (used with object), -mined, -min⋅ing.
1. to injure or destroy by insidious activity or imperceptible stages, sometimes tending toward a sudden dramatic effect.
2. to attack by indirect, secret, or underhand means; attempt to subvert by stealth.
Again, Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. If he’s subverting or undermining the Constitution, then impeach the SOB. If he’s merely offering legislation which you oppose, then criticize the legislation.
With regard to the differences in numbers in the New England Journal of Medicine paper, I see. It’s the difference between the sample size and the number in the sample who agreed with my position (a large majority, as I claimed). You don’t seem to understand the principles of statistical sampling, in stating that only 1241 physicians agreed with me. The total sample size was 2130 physicians, randomly selected to represent the nation’s physicians. This contrasts with the typical sample size of 1,000 or so, in a Rasmussen or Gallup poll, to represent all the voters in the USA. Also, the response rate (43% of those attempted to be polled) compares very favorably with the results of any large national survey of anyone.
Regarding the issue of what the public option was referring to (in the NEJM article), it’s clear from your posts that you were scolding me for ostensibly not realizing that the “public option” referred to lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 55, as opposed to a public option for all citizens. I was correct in stating it as I did, and you were incorrect in scolding me for this.
@Mike: You’ve got the last word, this time, buddy (reaction: horrors, guilt by association, get him off of me, he’s not my buddy, cooties).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: STILL citing that phony survey where the respondents were PAID?
Give it a rest!
For every one of your phony surveys I can cite TWO real ones!
This was a survey of doctors. A detailed survey. Doctors typically are paid for their time in participating in such surveys. It was a very large survey, with a good response rate, which was stringently peer reviewed. I’m familiar with a prior survey which you cited. It was anything but a scientific study (“replies are still coming in”). It wouldn’t have passed peer review in any scientific journal. The Robert Wood Johnson foundation sponsored studies are very rigorous. I’ve participated in them before (though I was not surveyed in the NEJM study I cited).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
The latest on the abortion issue in health care reform legislation:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/
This is consistent with my hope (and belief) that the Stupak amendment WILL remain in the final bill signed into law by the President. If so, this will constitute the most tangible success with regard to reducing abortions of any legislation passed since Roe v Wade.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@mata, regarding insurance industry profits. I continue to research this, but, to date, here’s the most relevant thing I can find, which concerns California Blue Cross, which consistently denies my claims, necessitating patients paying out of pocket, and in which 16 times my patients took them to court, winning 16 consecutive times, including one appeal to Superior Court, which was also upheld, with the result that Wellpoint Blue Cross has never since appealed an adverse verdict, because they want to avoid a large bad faith lawsuit (Superior Court being precedent setting):
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/april/blue_cross_of_califo.php
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Just responded to Mata’s #31, where she said:
However, my reply went to spam. Hint: Lies, damn lies, and statistics
Another thought (in addition to what I wrote), any idea what 2% of 16% of the gross domestic product represents?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
YAWN!
Haven’t we heard all these leftie talking points about two dozen times already Larry?
You really do need to come up with some new material.
Here’s something you can wrap your head around, it’s from a REAL survey, the Gallup Poll, in which recipients were NOT Paid and the survey was not funded by a group looking to push a left wing political agenda:
@Mike:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No-Clear-Mandate-Americans-Healthcare-Reform.aspx
Given all the Tea Parties, Town Meeting scream fests, demonstrations on the Mall, talk radio screeds, cable news kvetching, and blogosphere umbrage, I’ll take it.
The people who understand the health care system best (i.e. the non-elective surgery doctors) are with me on this. And it’s going to happen.
Take it to the bank.
If the GOP really cared about the issues, rather than scoring political points, they’d do what the Catholic Bishops are doing, which is working with the party in power, as opposed to doing the same thing they did 45 years ago, when Medicare was being invented, and they belatedly came up with an alternative option, known as “Eldercare,” and otherwise threw a temper tantrum.
As the Bible says, there’s nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or, as Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Back in those days, there was a very good political vocal music group, called the Chad Mitchell Trio. I was in high school, and Barry Goldwater had just run for President. They had two very funny songs which poked fun at conservatives: “Barry’s Boys” and “The John Birch Society.” Last year, these now old geezers got together and did an homage to themselves. If you’ve got a sense of humor, maybe you can have a laugh at your own expense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsCfKW91E28
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Let’s get this out of the way first, Larry.
You wrote:
You really must slow down on your reading, Larry.
On the heels of your snopes faux pas, in which you were accusing me of considering the progressive agenda more of an enemy than the global Islamic jihad movements, I responded… in full context:
Now, if you read very carefully, you will note that I say *anyone… citizen to POTUS*. I was not specifically talking just about Obama, nor was I talking about health care. Who I was very specifically talking about was you. gasp…. Yes you, attempting to quash legitimate debate and free speech by characterizing me as a hysterical scaremongering militia type. You, however, are not alone in this Alinsky tactic… so I included all your cohorts in your progressive agenda. You may be a moderate in some issues, but when it comes to health care and cap and trade, you are most definitely a progressive.
So it’s interesting you chose to assume I was speaking of Obama when technically I was speaking of you and those like you who choose to debate the way you do. i.e., I give you reasons for why I liken the Pelosi/Obama creation more to England and Canada. I give you excerpts from the legislation. I give you definitions of single payer that you insist upon abusing
What do I get back? The same old tired NEJM poll where you tout how wonderful a 43% response rate is…. and that’s even when they’re paid, fer heavens sake. Then you try to claim every last 2130 participant as agreeing with you.
When I point out that the single payer option in the Pelosi bill is indeed SINGLE PAYER, you say it’s going to be administrated like Medicare. When I point out your error, you then assume I’m all of the sudden talking about Medicare when I’m talking about the single payer public option.
Then you drag me into the abortion/catholic church issue which interests me not one iota. Then there’s some out of the blue accusation about the media and universities, and I haven’t a clue who said anything about them. I’d have to start reading this thread from top to bottom to figure that out. But I assure you, it wasn’t me.
I swear… it’s a bit difficult to carry on a cyber debate with you over the hours, with both of us multitasking work… as I have come to the conclusion neither of us has a clue as to what you are talking about.
But hey, if I’m your favorite target for this thread, have at it. I’m up to it.
Now I find it very interesting that you blindly accept a demonstrably false assertion that administration costs for Medicare is cheaper than private insurance when even the AMA says that’s not true… and that the costs of Medicare admin are cheated by leaving out the other agencies’ costs involved in that administration… such as SS, IRS, etc.
That statistic you accept. But then you really have to dig to find out whether the insurance companies are making 2% profit, or 7.3% profit. If you want to get technical, Larry, some may make 7%, some may lose their shirts, others may eke by and together they average about 2% profit. So telling me the stories of the California specific company, and their particulars doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things. However the telling statement in your cited article is that the other insurance companies were so impressed with a 7.3% profit structure (a sad statement in itself for an private business to hope to grow on so little) that they looked to “emulate” their performance.
Then the author comes up with a new 52% profit structure, but for only 1/3 of their total revenue. WTF?
Let’s pose a few realities for you to consider… even if we can’t get thru to the bozo reporter on the article. Let’s take everyone’s favorite demon, the oil industry. Our US oil companies are small peanuts in the oil world, predominately owned by States. As a matter of fact, even with overseas holdings, they can’t pump enough oil to fill our refineries for gas consumption. So the oil companies are not only pumping oil, they are also purchasers of oil on the world market to satisfy their petroleum contacts. Fact is, they lose their shirts on this venture. That constitutes and x percentage of their overall revenue.
Where they make up for the revenue is via P&E (production and exploration). However since the US doesn’t allow any P&E on our holy grounds, they make their money doing P&E for the other countries not busy being politically correct. They make grand cash doing that, which helps make up for the windfall losses they take supplying the US gas stations.
This same theory for business holds true for just about any corporation…. take a grocery store. They make lose their proverbial butts in the small automotive sections, flowers, etc. But they make up for it perhaps with their fresh vegetables and meat departments. The deli’s are probably there not for profit, but to minimize loss for fresh foods that did not sell.
Back to your cited article with a speculative (gasp) 52% profit for admin revenues which account for 1/3 of their income. Pray tell, what makes you think that the other 2/3rds of that business are so all fired profitable?
The insurance business is a business of risk. When Katrina rolled around, as with other hurricanes in the past, she did her fair share of wiping out the smaller insurance industries because the roll of that die was against them. It takes only one event such as a plague or natural disaster to place an insurance company on the brink of extinction. They may be high on the hog one year, and out of business the next.
As far as you “hint: lies” BS, I posted on the insurance profits back in late October. So danged busy my posts have been few of late, but I surely remember most of what I wrote. And you’ll find that the outfit doing the “fact checking” on the “evil insurance companies” was none other than the AP… no enemy of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid three stooges show.
My suggestion is if you think you have enough research from your lone little CA companies to debunk Calvin Woodard’s AP article on insurance profits nationwide statistics, you take it up with him. Other than that, my statement has far more to back up the cited profits than the reporter’s pitiful attempt to speculate what were a company’s profits without ever seeing their books. Chutzpah, when you think of it.
Folks, larry isn’t trying to convince you he’s right as much as he’s trying to convince himself he’s right. He desperately needs to believe he’s the great, wonderful, super intelligent, super compasionate elite he believes himself to be. Others who don’t agree with him are a threat to the fantasy he’s constructed. This is why he is so insistent to the point of repeating things long disproven.
While I don’t think he’s a bad guy, he’s suffering from severe patholigical denial.
@mata:
Number 1: Read back through your posts on this thread. It’s a lot of ragging on Obama. So you say “POTUS” and you claim that you were talking only of a generic POTUS and not THE POTUS?
Hard to believe, given your reference to said POTUS in #60, among other places:
.
You are too subtle for my poor simple brain, Mata. Sublimely subtle, it would seem.
Number two: I never said you were talking about health care. I was simply making a point to Aye. You claim that Pelosicare will lead to a public option taking over everything. Aye cited an article agreeing with the Democratic position that the public option would be an inconsequential part of the total. I was just enjoying the irony of the two of you promoting polar opposite points of view.
With regard to the insurance company analysis, it’s as I wrote: lies, damn lies, and statistics. You judge the insurance industry by the standards of a service industry or a manufacturing industry, profits seem reasonable. But those businesses are different from insurance businesses. My own business is a service business. I’ve got a profit margin of about 20%, but the other 80% is my own money. It’s money that I, myself, have to put into my business. I’ve got to pay the mortgage on my building, pay my employees, buy my lab equipment, buy my drugs, pay my medical couriers, pay my liability insurance, pay for my laboratory supplies. This is not the way the insurance business works. Their only costs are their administrative costs for managing OTHER PEOPLE’S money. When you look at their profits, relative to their own out of pocket costs, they are obscene. As I said, do the math on 2% of 16% of the gross domestic product.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Let me finish this sentence for you:
“f the GOP really cared about the issues, rather than scoring political points, they’d “propose a series of alternative solutions like lifting the ban on interstate competition, malpractice lawsuit reform while protecting Medicare!
Which is exactly what they have done:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/11-06-09_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_GOP_Health_Care_Bill.pdf
The problem is that the assholes who run your party are such arrogant pricks that they simply refuse to consider any alternative which might upset their contributors.
Democrats are not acting in the best interest of the American people, but in their own selfish political interest.
And no amount of spin on your part Larry is going to convince anyone otherwise.
Every day that goes by your side loses more and more people once they find out what you are really up to.
We could have REAL health care reform with broad bipartisan consensus but your side is the one who is blocking it.
@Mike:
I personally believe that if Mitch O’Connell went to Harry Reid and said, “I’ll deliver the votes of Republicans to support your health care bill if you agree to include malpractice reform,” Reid would conference with Obama and they’d accept the offer.
Portability across state lines is something which will be rendered moot by the insurance exchanges and the public option.
But the GOP won’t do this. They are under the delusion that they won the last election. it’s up to them to wrangle the best deal they can out of the bill that the party in power is going to ram through, with them or without them. The Bishops leveraged their power to gain a huge concession. The GOP could do the same, or they can throw a temper tantrum and get nothing.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, are you this hard to converse with in person? What I mean is I’m rather a linear conversationalist. When I make my comments, they are generally addressed to the last comments or to those that I specifically blockquote.
What I find hard to believe is that you can take that comment, directed mostly at you personally, and dig back multiple previous comments for the context. Huh?
So we’ll leave it at this… my comment about subverting the Constitution was in reference to your “subliminal” suggestion that we just stop considering our extreme opposing views as worthwhile, and I confine my militant, hysterical, conspiratorial self to focusing on the true enemies… jihadists. I consider that an assault on my 1st Amendment.
Your second remark was about the RKBA… which you later explained was a friendly “dig”. I acknowledged that.
As for Obama… I retract nothing of my “ragging”, as you call it. I merely keep trying to point out to you that Obama has stated – in no uncertain terms – that he is a proponent of single payer systems and that it will take multiple steps and decades to achieve that. You, apparently, feel that’s information worth ignoring and has no relevance in the issue at hand.
Quite simply, you’re wrong, you’re naive, and you’re dangerous.
As to your responses to Mike… can’t help but weigh in.
Let me put it this way. You may be able to box up a load of cow manure, but putting a pretty bow and a nice card on it isn’t going to change the fact that it’s a box of cow manure. If Mitch O’Connell caved over a small pittance of genuine cost cutting with malpractice, he deserves to be ousted right along with Specter and Reid in the next midterms. If he’s going to whore out the GOP, he had better be asking a better price than that.
But then, as I said, you’re not very good at predictions, nor sizing up those you politically do not understand.
So again I say, you’re wrong, you’re naive, and you’re dangerous.
Possibly. However even more likely is that there will be a pile of 10th Amendment lawsuits for the feds infringing on state’s rights. The fact that most companies cannot sell across state lines comes not from monopoly accusations, as your side likes to spin. It’s because of the State’s and their individual mandates on health insurance. Now you think that the feds will be able to step in and usurp their rights to control health care regulations in their States, and that they will go down that Constitutionally shaky road quietly?
I hope not. I do want cross-state competition. But not at the expense of a precedent that erodes the 10th Amendment.
I can see you really need a copy of the Constitution in your office…..
Mata, you are an editor and I’m just a guest; so you deserve the last word. I’ve made the points I wanted to make. As always, I thank you for the time you put into these discussions with me.
- Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You’re welcome. Hang, the time I took here, I coulda done a post! But then, it was broken up by many other working events inbetween.
More from the Catholic Bishops on healthcare, of which I agree completely.
Larry I wonder ( I ask this seriously, not in sarcasm), how “smart” you will continue to think the Catholic Bishops are when they up the Senate debate to include the protection of ALL human life? I suspect you will say, “We can add that other life stuff later”, which, BTW, would NEVER get added once the train has left the station.
I do have to agree with you that what the Bishops did was “interesting” and perhaps more brilliant than I had first given them credit. It appears that had they not put pressure on the dems, the bill may never have gotten out of the house, probably not. On first thought, that was a mistake, as in “Why didn’t you just KILL THE Bill (let it die)?” Initially, I was upset by this, knowing that there is no chance a final bill will be signed WITHOUT abortion, so why didn’t they just leave well enough alone and let it die in the house?
Perhaps they did out smart Pelosi. They HAD to have known she was playing them, but were THEY playing her? If so, it appears their ‘strategy’ (I use that word cautiously owing to the fact that faithful Catholic Bishops are first and always faithful to the teachings of Christ, not politics) was to get abortion first, and go for the rest of the life issues in the final bill. Thanks to Sarah Palin coining “death panels”, I suspect they will have the support of the majority of Americans behind them, since by logic alone, rationing HAS to occur in this monster of a bill.
I continue to predict that there is no chance a bill with “life provisions” (including non coverage of abortion) will EVER get passed under this Senate and President Obama. And that will be a good thing, because as the Bishops rightfully acknowledge, the rest of the bill, especially the economic issues, is far too complex. Consequently, I have now come to appreciate the Bishops’ fight, but they will need to save it for a less radical congress and less “agenda driven” bill.
I suspect all conservatives and most of Americans want improved health coverage, but not at ‘all costs’, especially at economic ruin to America and without the protection of all human life. Cardinal George, the leader of the US Catholic Bishops perfectly stated what I considered to be the epitome of what “Obamacare” despertly lacks:
@MataHarley said: ” Hang, the time I took here, I coulda done a post! “
Absolutely. You could have written a post which reached thousands but instead got diverted into putting all that time and effort into a personal exchange with one lefty. One wonders if maybe that wasn’t Larry’s goal all along: keep you from posting.
Confound his plan by posting anyway.
@pdill:
Your chosen quote is so important that I’d like to play it again:
I don’t see anything in it about “upping the ante,” on anything other than, perhaps, extension of benefits to the “illegals,” so that they are “treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that they now have.”
You see the line which talks about protecting those at the “end of life,” and this triggers images of Sarah Palin’s outrageous “death panels.” I know that you believe another of Obama’s wet dreams is to be Grim Reaper-in-Chief, but that’s the mother of all hysterical scaremongering (and never has that phrase been more justifiably applied). I see nothing in the Bishop’s statement which indicates that they are going after anti-”death panel” language in the bill, where death panels refers to the so-called rationing of care. Maybe language barring the use of federal funds for euthanasia, which is a moot point, since no one is promoting euthanasia and no one is promoting assisted suicide or any such thing.
I am absolutely certain that the Bishops would have no objection whatsoever to end of life counseling, which is also moot, because Sarah Palin took that off the table, which is a great tragedy for cancer patients and many others. I again want to recommend Chapter Two in “Super Freakonomics,” where they talk about the limitations of cancer chemotherapy.
When you say “rationing has to occur,” I agree with you. Rationing is already occurring. I don’t know if you saw that article from Health Affairs which I quoted earlier (#55). Let me quote it again:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/22.pdf
Here’s what no one around here can seem to get through their thick skulls: We already have rationing. Let’s look at people who don’t have insurance. I had a fraternity brother named Gary, who was self-employed as a printer. The business was good enough that he could pay for his apartment, and clothes, and food, and car, and very modest entertainment needs. But he also had to moonlight as (of all things) a funeral director. One day, out of the blue, at age 59, he developed chest pain. It ended up not being a heart attack, but rather a very strange type of cancer, invading the sack (pericardium) around his heart.
Now Gary didn’t have health insurance. It would have been a major financial strain to buy health insurance; in addition to Gary not having a lot of money, he was a mild diabetic, which made him virtually uninsurable. You might fault Gary for not getting some type of insurance anyway, but he didn’t. Now, if Gary had insurance, he’d have been treated with chemotherapy right away. In point of fact, some of the tumor from his diagnostic biopsy procedure was sent to our lab. We ran our tests for free and found two drugs which looked extremely active against Gary’s tumor. Although I did, indeed, “diss” chemotherapy in my quoting “Super Freakonomics,” what I was referring to, end of life wise, was the situation where the patient has already received chemotherapy and perhaps the tumor shrank or even disappeared, at one point, but which then finally came back for good. My sister has been battling ovarian cancer for more than 6 years; she’s had multiple remissions and multiple recurrences. But, with many patients, there comes a point where it’s obvious that it’s not working anymore and that further treatment will just make the patient feel much worse and won’t help them live longer. It is at these points that end of life counseling is required. Because of Palin, it won’t be given and oncologists will just get richer, pushing more chemo — but I digress.
Getting back to Gary, he was newly-diagnosed and had never been treated with even a single dose of chemotherapy. He might have been one of those patients who had a truly dramatic response and remission, and he might still be alive today, more than 4 months later, and he might still have been alive next year. Our tests indicated that he’d have had a very good chance of responding to two of the entirely “standard” chemotherapy drugs. If he’d had insurance, he’d have been treated within a week from his diagnosis. Instead, the oncologist who was on hospital call for now emergency patients and who became his doctor and therefore couldn’t just abandon him instead simply scheduled Gary’s follow-up appointment for evaluation for chemotherapy for ONE MONTH AFTER HIS HOSPITAL DISCHARGE. Gary didn’t have insurance. He only had Medi-CAL. Medi-CAL doesn’t pay squat for chemotherapy (unlike Medicare, which pays very well). The doctor would have lost money treating Gary; so he didn’t.
And Gary had to be re-admitted to the hospital 3 weeks after his hospital discharge, from complications of progressive cancer. He died several days later, never having been treated once for his cancer. This would never have happened, if he’d had insurance.
This type of thing goes on all the time in America, for people without health insurance. Gary was not an irresponsible person. He didn’t deserve what happened to him. He was, quite literally, rationed to death. People without health insurance are rationed to death in this country all the time. These are the “Tier 1″ patients referred to in my cited article. What about the “Tier 2″ patients, which are typical people with average insurance? They get rationed, also, only not as overtly. They get rationed with respect to choice of doctors, choice of hospitals, choice of drugs on the approved health plan formulary. They get rationed with respect to treatments, although they don’t know it. Their doctors are experts on what their plans pay for and what they do not. So they only receive treatments which are covered under their health care plans.
Some health care plans are very generous with respect to hospital benefits. Patients with these policies stay in the hospital longer, while patients with health care plans mandating short stays are booted out, often literally with their surgical drains still dangling. Most people have heard about the in and out child deliveries and in and out surgeries. People with the best insurance (what I might call concierge insurance) don’t have to go the in and out route. The rest are rationed to in and out. There’s lots and lots of rationing which goes on everyday. Not decided by government “death panels” (truly the most vile political scaremongering I’ve ever heard; and Sarah Palin has directly contributed to the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of future cancer patients, and I consider her to be an utterly despicable, self serving human being); instead decided by health insurance operatives.
When people speak of the horror of rationing, they have no compassion whatsoever for the people without health insurance, who are literally being rationed to death every day. They are speaking about rationing for THEMSELVES. Well, most of those people are already being rationed. If they don’t want to be rationed, they have the option of purchasing concierge level insurance or paying out of pocket. They’ll still have that option under Pelosicare.
I noted earlier that some forms of chemotherapy currently cost $10,000 per month and one year’s worth of treatment has to be given to extend life by one month. $120,000 for one month. Without unlimited money, is there a point where cost effectiveness has to be considered? What about future drugs, which may cost $20,000 per month? This is not fanciful; it’s here today. I frequently do tests on tumors where I come up with the best drugs being Avastin plus Sutent. The cost of giving both of these drugs together can be $20,000 per month. No insurance will currently pay for this. Some of my patients do receive treatments like this. How? They pay for it out of pocket (not to me; I don’t treat the patients I test, because I’d consider it to be an enormous conflict of interest to do so).
I keep pointing out that health insurance premiums for small businesses like mine are going up 15% this year, after doubling during 8 years of President Bush. What I’m saying is that rationing is already here, and it’s going to be worse. Who do I want doing the rationing? Certainly not Wellpoint Blue Cross, behind closed doors. I want coverage decisions made right out in the open, as it is with Medicare. With public announcements in advance of hearings. Opportunities for all to weigh in, provide data, speak at open public hearings, public deliberations by panels of outside experts. Posting of provisional recommendations. More opportunity for public comments and political pressures by Congress. etc. etc. These are the so-called “death panels.” The insurance industry has them. They are private, closed doors affairs. Medicare has them. They are transparent. Pelosicare will certainly have them. That’s the way government works. Transparent.
Interesting article in the news yesterday. Cedars Sinai Hospital in Beverly Hills — hospital to the rich and famous — seems that they horribly overdosed 260 patients with radiation during CT scans:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars10-2009nov10,0,2052232.story?track=rss
What was unusual about this story is simply that the mistake became public knowledge. Probably, it was too big to cover up. If this had happened in a VA hospital, the outcry would have been deafening. Private hospitals and private doctors aren’t under the same conditions of transparency as are public institutions and public employees. Private sector medicine typically is allowed to bury its mistakes in private.
In short, I trust public institutions to make “rationing” decisions much more than I trust private institutions. Since I don’t want to be rationed, I’ll keep cash reserves to pay out of pocket and I’ll have the best supplemental insurance I can obtain. But I want basic care, with no lifetime payment limitations, to be available to everyone, like my friend Gary.
I love what the Catholic Bishops are doing. They are working for medical coverage for all, as they have been doing for decades. They are working to actually reduce abortions, which is what will happen if Pelosicare gets signed into law. They are working for a conscience clause, which I also support. It looks like they will also be working to extend coverage to “illegals,” from the language of pdill quotation (above). They are working to get the best deal they can. If they don’t get 100% of everything, I’m sure that they won’t walk away from the whole thing (as the GOP has done) and get nothing. They’ll do the best that they can and ultimately take what they can get.
I ask you again, pdill, do you support what the Bishops are doing? In the end, will you support Pelosicare (or whatever version of it finally gets signed into law) if the Bishops end up supporting it?
I’m on the side of the Bishops. I support them 100%. I think that the Bishops actually helped Pelosicare get through the House. This gave the Democratic moderates “cover” to vote for the bill. I think that this will have the same effect in the Senate. Senators voting for the bill can claim that they are on the side of the angels, which is exactly how I look at the Bishops.
Coverage for all Americans. Yes! Reduce abortions — actually reduce abortions and not just spend another decade paying lip service to overturning Roe v Wade — yes! Conscience clause — yes! Coverage decisions made transparently (I added this one) — yes, yes, yes!
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mike.
I love Mata’s postings. Frankly, without her participation here, I’d find another blog. I always learn a tremendous amount by reading them and I enjoy debating her.
- Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com: Yes, I am sure it strokes your ego immensely to have Mata devote so much time to debunking your leftward lunacy. And I don’t fault her for doing so except to the extent that it keeps her from devoting the time necessary to reach the wider audience.
Now, if you two want to get a room somewhere and hash it out, fine by me.